: Le 
ae FS is I 


ae 


EDWARD STRATTON HOLLOWAY 


; 
; } 
( 
, A 
x 
‘ 
; 
+ 
ad 
- 
« 
™~ 
» 
. * 
re ad 
‘3 
ot ui 
; w* : 2 J. ‘ 


RE 


ITU 
COLONIAL AND FEDERAL 


‘ 


ERICAN FUR 


AM 
AND DECORATION 


LIPPINCOTT’S PRACTICAL BOOKS FOR 
THE ENRICHMENT OF HOME LIFE 


THE PRACTICAL BOOK OF LEARNING DECORATION AND FURNI- 
TURE. By Epwarp Strratron HoLioway 


THE PRACTICAL BOOK OF DECORATIVE WALL-TREATMENTS. By 


Nancy McCre.iawp. 


THE PRACTICAL BOOK OF FURNISHING THE SMALL HOUSE AND 
APARTMENT. By Epwarp Stratron HoLLoway. 


THE PRACTICAL BOOK OF INTERIOR DECORATION. By Harotp 
DonaLpson Eserztein, AssotT McCiure and Epwarp Stratron HoLioway. 


THE PRACTICAL BOOK OF CHINAWARE. By Haroitp DonaLpson EBER- 


LEIN and RoGeR WEARNE RaMSDELL. 
THE PRACTICAL BOOK OF TAPESTRIES. By Grorce LeLanp Hunter. 


THE PRACTICAL BOOK OF OUTDOOR FLOWERS. By Ricwarpson 
Waricuat, Editor of House and Garden. 


THE PRACTICAL BOOK OF PERIOD FURNITURE. By Harotp Dona.p- 
SON EBERLEIN and Apspot McCuure. Revised and Enlarged. 


THE PRACTICAL BOOK OF ORIENTAL RUGS. By G. Grirrin Lewis. 


THE PRACTICAL BOOK OF AMERICAN ANTIQUES. By Harotp Don- 
ALDSON EBERLEIN and Assot McC ure. 


THE PRACTICAL BOOK OF ARCHITECTURE. By C. Marttack Price. 


THE PRACTICAL BOOK OF ITALIAN, SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE 
FURNITURE. By Harotp Donatpson Espertein and RocerR WEARNE 
RAMSDELL. 


VIHdTHQVTIHd TIVH TVIYOWAW ‘WOESAW VINVATASNNAd JHL LV WOO VIHdTaGVIIHd AHL 


AMERICAN FURNITURE 
AND DECORATION 
COLONIAL AND FEDERAL 


BY 
EDWARD STRATTON HOLLOWAY 


AUTHOR OF 
“THE PRACTICAL BOOK OF LEARNING DECORATION AND FURNITURE” 
“THE PRACTICAL BOOK OF FURNISHING THE SMALL, HOUSE AND APARTMENT”? 
JOINT AUTHOR OF “THE PRACTICAL BOOK OF INTERIOR DECORATION” 


WITH 200 ILLUSTRATIONS 


PHILADELPHIA & LONDON 
foo LL PPINCOTT. COMPANY 
1928 


TO 


HOWARD REIFSNYDER 
IN APPRECIATION OF 
FRIENDSHIP AND 
READY HELP 


FOREWORD 


HE aim of the writer has been to supply at a 

moderate cost a convenient book for use: to fur- 
nish the reader with a full equipment for a knowledge 
and understanding of American furniture, the ap- 
propriate interior, and its decoration: to place before 
him a large body of illustrations, carefully selected, 
reproduced with especial clearness, and of a size show- 
ing construction and ornament. 

Such a volume is equally necessary to those whose 
interest lies in original furniture and to those who wish 
to purchase reproductions that adequately represent 
their originals. 

By the practical method here adopted of illustrat- 
ing and treating the furniture of each Syle by itself and 
in proper chronological order it becomes easy to dis- - 
tinguish the characteristics of each furniture-group, 
and so quickly to “place,” by the recognition of those 
qualities, any piece of furniture that one sees. These 
consecutive styles soon lie out in the mind like a map, 
upon any location in which a mental finger can un- 
hesitatingly be set down. Transition pieces then 
cause no difficulty, for the characteristics of two styles 
in the one piece are recognised, and the article is 
assigned to its natural place between the two modes. 
To a degree that did not obtain in England, there was 
sometimes here the persistence of certain features of 
one style into the next, and this makes it all the more 
necessary to understand which features belong to each. 

Those who become interested in the subject of our 
furniture usually acquire considerable knowledge of 
the furniture itself and some scattered particulars 

5 


6 FOREWORD 


regarding its origin. Many collectors, even, do not 
go much beyond this point—simply because of the 
amount of labour and research through many sources 


that hitherto has been necessary to gather together — 


the required information. But if we care for the 
furniture that is our heritage and would be knowl- 
edgeable regarding it, we shall wish to know what 
made it what it was—in the classical language of the 
Street, “how it got that way.” 

Probably it would make for the advancement of 
human knowledge if we did not quite so early in life 
drop childhood’s insistent ““why?” In what respects 
do the styles differ each from the other, and why did 
each appear? Are they mere “sports,” or, like the 
men who developed them, have they ancefry, have 
they cause? A flower may bloom overnight, but the 
root, the stem, the leaf, the bud were there. 

In previous books no special attempt has been 
made to trace the features composing our American 
Styles to the sources from which they came. New 
modes are a development from some preceding sug- 
gestion. A novel idea enters, and presently the old is 
transformed into the new. And those ideas or move- 
ments were not confined to one country—they were 
international: yet American furniture has not previ- 
ously been regarded in its broad relation to all other 
furniture. Because of our enormous modern facilities 
we habitually undervalue the amount of intercourse 
existing in the past between the various countries of 
Europe and between them and the Orient: because of 
the wide knowledge now accessible to us we custom- 
arily forget the power that knowledge, when less ac- 
cessible, possessed. 

American furniture contains elements from all over 
Europe and from Asia: and American craftsmen made 


ae 
¥ 
is 
. . 
4) 
oh 
oak 
i 
oe 
7 
“a 
h . 
f 


FOREWORD r 


variations in these through their own individuality. 
Do we care for our furniture and yet care little to know 
what made it what it was? 

Each sort, or style, of decoration and furniture was 
evolved by man to satisfy his own particular needs and 
his sense of beauty: we cannot therefore understand the 
decoration and furniture of any period unless we know 
something of humanity at that particular time and the 
conditions besetting it. What we need of this necessary 
“background” is concisely supplied here; not too much 
of it—an historical essay is not necessary—but the 
salient points bearing on furniture and decoration. 

We must all feel a sense of fatigue at the extensive 
exploitation of the primitive American furniture; especi- 
ally now that we are forced to pay beggaring prices for 
what was made for, and is essentially appropriate to, 
only the simplest interior or the kitchen. While it and 
its accompanying environment—like all things simple, 
straightforward and honest—have their naif charm, we 
ourselves live in an age very grown up indeed, and it 
seems quite time that we should turn our attention to 
something in every way more worthwhile, more suitable 
to our cultivation and manner of living. 

With all our prosperity, our new country naturally 
possessed no such palatial establishments as the “‘great”’ 
houses of England. The sophistication of the social set 
of Mrs. Bingham of Philadelphia, and of like sets in 
other communities, was sporadic rather than usual; 
with all our healthy appetite for life and the good 
things thereof, a certain ascetic strain did undeniably 
pervade our American character. This may partially 
have been due to stern traditions growing out of the 
endured hardships of colonisation; it certainly owed 
a great part of its existence to the religions of our 
forebears. 


“o> Sa ag Dae! i De 
‘ SON ern ee 


g FOREWORD 


In Philadelphia, Quakers and ‘‘World’s People” 
Strove and throve side by side, each bearing their 
admirable part in the city’s life and progress. It may 
well be doubted if the Quaker succeeded in “holding 
down’ the social set, but that he had great influence 
upon the character of the whole Pennsylvania, New 
Jersey, and Delaware section is indubitably true. In 
Boston, the less tolerant Puritan, in his earnest but 
wrong-headed endeavours to scotch the devil, almost 
succeeded in spoiling the joy of living for his fellows, 
but could not spoil it utterly. The sense of beauty will 
not die, and that it found its fitting expression in New 
England we shall see. 

The result of this ascetic strain was that what most 
Americans regard as an undue degree of ornament was 
not here indulged in, and that in American furniture 
there is consequently an “‘atmosphere”’ differing from 
that of any other country. Personally I feel that 
repression not to have been all a gain: that, thereby, 
we have, as a nation, become unused to, and so un- 
appreciative of, some of the loveliest things devised by 
man. 

But this is beside the point; to sum up our actual 
output, elaborate pieces are rather the exception; there 
were very many of decidedly handsome character; and 
others of equal quality in handiwork but of simpler 
form or ornament admirably adapted to the average — 
home. Our produét, then, may be regarded as balanced 
and exceedingly well suited to our varying needs—in pas 
the present as well as in the past. aa 

It is amazing, too, to find the great number of vari- 
ations in form and ornamental detail that we con- 
Stantly encounter. Furniture was then made not by 
machines but by men: and man when he works indi- 
vidually is invariably possessed by the itch to create, to 


FOREWORD 9 


develop his own idea, to express himself, and not liter- 
ally to copy. The cabinet-maker of the older day was 
working in the wood itself; and even when he followed 
his model was gaining an appreciation of the capa- 
bilities of his material, a mastery of proportion and of 
detail, that made him potentially at least a designer 
and so able to put life and vigour into his work; while 
the bolder spirit often made innovations and develop- 
ments of his own. 

Was it because of his intimate contact with material 
and the personal carrying out of design that the product 
of the unassuming early craftsman and the results of 
his modifications were mostly right, while those of the 
present-day designer, who works on paper, are mostly 
wrong! We cannot blame the difference entirely upon 
machinery, for machinery at least does handsomely 
what it is set to do. 

Whatever the cause, the fad remains that if the ~ 
phrase “verify your quotations”’ is an axiom in litera- 
ture, to verify commercial period furniture by original 
examples is no less necessary—for commonly the more 
they vary the worse they are! 

With the enlightenment of the public by means of 
the continual illustration of authentic furniture in books 
and magazines, we may hope that the householder and 
the trade will soon be satisfied with “straight reproduc- 
tions only’’—in which case we may be sure that the 
manufacturer will be quick to supply more of them than 
we find at present. 

The writer is in complete accord with the ideal that 
each generation should produce its own decoration and 
furniture—expressive of itself and satisfying its special 
requirements. Inthe past this spontaneously occurred, 
each style being a natural growth; but a hundred years 


10 FOREWORD 


ago inspiration failed. The situation as regards fur- 
niture is well summed up by Mr. Huger Elliott, of the 
Metropolitan Museum, when he says, “It is a trifle 
mortifying to have to confess that we prefer almost any 
chair made before 1828 to any designed since that 
Hime 

An influx of the modern French decoration is 
under way, and as it bids fair to assume large propor- 
tions, we should sympathetically weigh its merits as an 
earnest creative movement. As a decoration it is re- 
Strained in colour, using only a few stronger accents: it 
is full of spirit: many of its textiles are fascinating: it 
has commandeered a large number of materials and is 
making excellent use of them: the woods used are of 
the finest quality and often admirably combined: its 
lighting deserves the highest praise. 

Furniture is by many admitted to be its least suc- 
cessful achievement and some of the most discriminat- 
ing of the Parisian decorators are employing old fur- 
niture with the new decoration. ‘This is a hint for 
those who may adopt the mode in America. The 
furniture there used is of course French—and we have 
our French derivations. 

A word of caution. may not be amiss: much bad 
work appears in Paris itself, and we may expect a great 
deal of it here. The style is successful when rightly 
handled, but it requires the greatest knowledge and ~ 
discrimination for its successful use. | 


This volume is newly written and mentions the 
latest discoveries of previously unknown cabinet- 
makers, up to the time of going to press. For the 
privilege of including substantial portions of’ the last 
three chapters and some smaller sections from my 
recent series of articles appearing in House and Garden — 


FOREWORD II 


I am much indebted to Richardson Wright, Esq., the 
editor of that valuable journal. 

I have not hesitated to express—and pungently at 
times—my personal point of view. The reader is by no 
means forced to adopt those opinions, and may, by their 
expression, be stimulated to form his own; the facts are 
here given by which he may do so. 

I cannot close this foreword without special reference 
to the warm human spirit of collectors and private 
owners who have made it possible for others to see and 
Study and know fine furniture, through their loans and 
gifts to museums or by allowing writers the privilege 
of reproducing such pieces and others in their own 
homes; also to the staffs and associates of these museums 
and of libraries, who universally have shown more than 
courtesy and kindness in the real codperation that en- 
courages the writer to feel that the spirit in which he 
is doing what he can is appreciated and met. 

Let me thank, then, for myself and my readers: | 

Howard Reifsnyder, Esq., for the privilege of re- 
producing so many pieces from his fine collection, none 
of which have appeared in any other volume; R. T. 
Haines Halsey, Esq., who has allowed me to show much 
furniture of our classic years; Dr. Samuel W. Wood- 
house, Jr., not only for aid with illustrations but in 
appreciation of our many talks over old furniture; the 
institutions to which I have above referred—the Metro- 
politan Museum of New York, the New York Public 
Library, and the New York Historical Society; the 
Victoria and Albert Museum of London; the Concord 
Antiquarian Society; and those of my own city, the 
Pennsylvania Museum, the Library Company of Phila- 
delphia, and the Philadelphia Free Library. 

C. Reginald Grundy, Esq., Editor of the Con- 


notsseur, London, and Kate Villiers Clive; William 


12 FOREWORD 


Helburn, Inc., New York, and John Martin Hammond, 
Esq., of Philadelphia, for the privilege of reproducing 
illustrations. | 
Other collectors and owners of fine furniture, Mr. 
and Mrs. Cornelius Stevenson, Francis P. Garvan, 
Esq., George Alfred Cluett, Esq., W. R. Morrison, 
Esq., Cape Town, So. Africa, Mrs. Edgar Wright 
Baird, Mrs. Arthur Biddle, Mrs. J. Woolston, Miss 
Margaretta S. Hinchman, the Estate of Mary Fell 
Howe, Mrs. James Proctor, Mrs. James S. Merritt, the 
Estate of Mary V. Hammond, Dudley L. Pickman, 
Esq., Morris M. Green, Esq., Dr. Ernest Noyes, Harold 
Donaldson Eberlein, Esq., and Abbot McClure, Esq. 
Charles Woolsey Lyon, Inc., New York, and the 
Estate of James Curran and A. F. C. Bateman Co., © 
Philadelphia, for illustrations and much information. — 
American Art Association, Inc., New York, Edouard 
Jonas, Paris and New York; the following English 
dealers: M. Harris & Sons, Arthur Edwards, Debenham 
and Freebody, William Whiteley, Ltd., The Hatfield 
Gallery of Antiques, all of London; C. Angell, Bath, 
W. F. Greenwood & Sons, Ltd., York and Harrowgate, 
Frederick Treasure, Preston and New York. 
For the use of New England photographs I was 
especially indebted to the late Mary Harrod Northend 
who sent me a number but a few days before her death. 
For other photographs I thank Messrs. H. Ferdi- 
nand Beidleman, Philip B. Wallace, and The Cook 
Studio of Richmond, Virginra. 


EDWARD STRATTON HOLLOWAY 


PHILADELPHIA, 
JuNE I, 1928 


CONTENTS 


FURNITURE 
THE COLONIAL STYLES 


JACOBEAN OR STUART 
WILLIAM AND Mary 
QuEEN ANNE-EarRLy GEORGIAN 
CHIPPENDALE 

THE FEDERAL STYLES 
HEPPLEWHITE, SHEARER, AND EARLY SHERATON 
AMERICAN Direoire 


AMERICAN EMPIRE 


DECORATION 


INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE 


DECORATIVE ACCESSORIES 


INDEX 


189 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


The Philadelphia Room at the Pennsylvania Museum, 
Memorial Hall, Philadelphia. ........ Frontispiece 


JACOBEAN OR STUART 
Plate Page 


feoearvea Oak Chest-of-Drawers .......4.. 26 
eeewane-top Weskin Iwo Parts ....9. . 1... ol. 26 
Demanmemutteriy lable... . 6. 0b. ee 27 
Meeteler Lable . se a 27 


WILLIAM AND MARY 
3 Georgian Highboy and Bedstead, William and Mary 


EINE sith 02k facie Sk ice apes a le hae 40 

4 William and Mary Highboy, Charles II Chairs . .. 40 

eee Lesh eee od 4l 

mieveanut Weck with Three Front Feet . .. .. . . . 4I 

6A Maple Writing- or Dressing-table, Bible Box of 1737 . 41 

DOMME OeCK OMA. ie ge es 41 

QUEEN ANNE-EARLY GEORGIAN 

Seemew wneland transition Chair ..........: 54 

wi iiatly Queen Anne Maple Chair ......... 54 

Seeywainut lable with Extended Top. .....:... 2. 54 

Seeeice naires of the Finest Type . . . . 25. 8. . 54 

MU agiiedt hs eee, 54 

9B Queen Anne Walnut Arm Chair ......... 54 

10oA Walnut Arm Chair by William Savery... .... 54 
Gummrmeronuibove Chair. 0. 6 Oe ea 54 
Deiseomman Wing-chair 8. ee, 55 
11B Queen Anne Transition to Chippendale ..... . 55 
Seer aeton Maple Highboy . 2. 60) ae, 8 ois 
12B Chest-of-drawers with Bracket Feet ........ 55 
13A William and Mary Chair, Queen Anne Drop-leaf Table — 55 
Mememeavie lwo-piece Desk 2 2 ee es 65 
SR reCDG ATO...) se Peng ae 
Muprnee sw oia-closet. oo ee a eS 55 


16 ILLUSTRATIONS 
Plate ; ; Page 
14B Corner China-closet .°.:. 7°27) ))g0 55 
CHIPPENDALE 

1sA Chairs of Queen Anne Derivation Type ...... 74 
1sC Chair with French Lattice Back 7 je ee 74 
16A Chair Formerly Owned by General Anthony Wayne. 74 
16B Chair with Straight Legs and Stretchers ..... . 74 
17 Philadelphia Chair with Double-arched Seat-rail . . 74 
18 Chair with Gothic Tendencies in Back ...... . 74 
19 Chair with Gothic Back . . 2), Qo. 75% 
20A Elaborate Wing-chair . . .\. 2 Sie eae eee 
20B Detail of the Above Chair . . . 2) open 75 
21 Upholstered Arm Chair with Carved Fret Ornament: 75 
22A Chinese Chippendale Chair with Perforated Fret . . 75 
22B Ladder-back Arm and Side Chair)" >) 2 ee 75 
23A Washington’s Sofa in Independence Hall. .... . ~84 
23B Typical Roll-arm Sofa with Stretchers ....... 84 
24 Rococo Pier-table from Cadwalader House, Phila- 

delphia. . . 0. 26 2. a 84 
25A Card-table of Pre-Chippendale Design ...... . 84 
25B Pie-crust, Tripod Tea-table. (gee Pea feerint . | 
26 Card-table with French Latticed Corners .... . 84 
27A Galleried Table with Raised Stretcher and Brackets . 85 
27B Small Table with Straight Legs and Brackets. . . 85 
28A Block- an Dressing-table of Northern New England 

Type... 6. Ao 85 
28B Desk acieend to be by John Goddatd : ..5.0se eee 85 
29A Early Dutch-Colonial Desk in Ceylon ....... 85 
29B Ribband-back Chair and Fire Screens from “The 

Director”... . 4 55 85 
30 . Bookcase with Gothic Tracery 277 2) 85 
31 Block-front Secretary-bookcase, Northern New Eng- 

land Type ... . . 4.) oi een nen go 
32 Secretary-bookcase Closely Resembling English Ex- 

amples... 3.0. « se Ce go 
33. Philadelphia Rococo Highboy in Untouched Condi- | 

tlON . ww ka ee go 
34. Philadelphia Highboy with Bonnet-top ...... go 
35 Philadelphia Highboy with Carved Apron .... . QT. fy 


36 Philadelphia Highboy with Separate Pediment ... QI 


ILLUSTRATIONS 17 


Plate Page 
Peenimaeripnpoy with lat Top ........°.. gI 
38 Rococo Commode of Authentic Chippendale Origin . 91 
39 Double-chest-of-drawers with Separate Pediment . . 94 
40 Double-chest from Derby House, Salem, Mass. . . 94 
41 Marriage High-chest of the Philadelphia Neighbour- 
ES ite rear tha en 94 
42 Chest-of-drawers and Label of Jonathan Gostelowe, 
CMMI ye ah eh ee yo. 94 
43 Flat-front Chest-of-drawers, Mirror of 1790-1800, 
ME PaECTS ek ee 95 
_44A Late Bow-front Chest-of-drawers ......... 95 
44B Labelled Lowboy Made by Thomas Tufft .... . 95 
45 Four-post Bedstead of Pre-Chippendale Design . . . 95 
46 Georgian Bedstead, Chippendale Stool and Lowboy, 
Sheraton Bason-stand and Chair ....7.... 95 
HEPPLEWHITE, SHEARER, AND SHERATON 
47A Chair, Transition from Chippendale ........ IIo 
Seeeeeememack Atm Chair. . we ee 110 
48 Two Hepplewhite Shield-back Side Chairs .... . I1O 
ag ~fiepplewhite Side and Arm Chair ......... 110 
50A Hepplewhite Chair with Cornucopia Balusters . . . 110 
50B An Attractive Hepplewhite Back-design ...... IIO 
51A Hepplewhite Interlaced-Heart Side Chairs . ... . III 
51 Hepplewhite Decorated Chairs .......... III 
52A Two Square-back Balusgter Chairs from Hepplewhite’s 
Mt ee ee Lhe vel wld ey we III 
52B Baluster Arm-support from Hepplewhite’s “Guide” . 111 
53. Iwo Sheraton Chairs with Stretchers ....... Ii 
54 Iwo Sheraton Side Chairs of Chagste Design .... III 
pen trate oneraton Chair-back ... . 9... 4. 114 
56. Ladder-back Chair of the Classic Period . ..... 114 
57A Two Sofa Designs from Hepplewhite’s “Guide”. . 114 
57B Sofa Design from Sheraton’s ‘“‘Drawing-book”” . . . 114 
58 Hepplewhite Sofa Made in Salem, Massachusetts . . 114 
eeeemneraton sofa by Duncan Phyfe ......'. 2. 115 
60 Sheraton Sofa Made in Salem, Massachusetts .. . I15 
61 Sheraton Sofa with Persigting Camel-back .... . 115 
62 Two Designs for Sideboards by Shearer ..... . 115 


63 Hepplewhite Sideboard in Inlaid Mahogany ... . 118 


18 ILLUSTRATIONS 


Plate 
64 Two Designs for Sideboards from Hepplewhite’s 
“Guide” . 5 oS ae ae 
65 Two English Inlaid Serpentine Sideboards .... . 
66A Design for a Sideboard by Sheraton ....... . 
66B Perspective Contours of Sheraton Sideboard Tops . . 
67 Sheraton Inlaid Mahogany Sideboard ....... 
68A Sheraton Chair-backs from His ‘‘ Drawing-book” 
68B An English Rendering of a Sheraton Side-table . . . 
69 Sheraton Sideboard or Large Pier-table .... . ts 
70 New England Sheraton Sideboard with Extended Legs 
71 Sheraton Sideboard with Paw-feet .......~., 
72A Transition Table, Chippendale to Hepplewhite 


72B Hepplewhite Inlaid Card-table i. > 290) ney 
73 Hepplewhite Semi-circular Card-table ....... 
74 Hepplewhite Card-table Made in the South 
75 Hepplewhite Inlaid Side-table ~. |.) 3) ee 
76 Two Sheraton Inlaid Card-tables Made in New Eng- 

land... 2.3. 
77. Sheraton Mahogany Dressing-table ....... . 
78 Sheraton Dressing-table with Ringed Legs .... . 


79 Sheraton New England Desk and Sheraton Chair . . 
80 Sheraton New England Tambour Desk and Rat-foot 
Table 0 2. fu. a 
81 Sheraton Light Mahogany Inlaid Desk ...... 
82A Hepplewhite Maple and Mahogany Chest-of-drawers . 
82B Desk of Mountain Cherry . . .. . 9) 3 
83 Sheraton Secretary-bookcase of the Philadelphia 
Neighbourhood ....:. eee 
84 Labelled Salem Secretary-bookcase in South Africa 


85A Pediment from Sheraton’s “Cabinet Directory,” 1803 


85B Sheraton Secretary-bookcase with Gothic Doors 


86 Sheraton Tambour Secretary-bookcase, Massachusetts — 


87 Sheraton Secretary-bookcase, Philadelphia Neighbour- 

hood 3 oo ve a 
88  Neo-classic China-closet, Inlaid >) 3 493) ee 
89 Sheraton Bedstead at Upsala, Germantown ae 
go Sheraton Field-bed in Massachusetts ....... 


AMERICAN DIRECTOIRE 


g1A French Direfoire Chairs . . . 2 yap . ae 


91B English Chairs of Diredfoire Type 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


Plate 
meee movi til de Repos 6 
92B Chair of French Revolutionary Period . . .... . 
92C Louis XVI Chair-leg with Spiral Finish . .... . 
93. “Late Sheraton” Arm Chair with DireGoire Back . . 
94A French Chair with Straight Front Legs ...... 
94B French Chairs with Developing Curves ...... 
9sA New York Chair with American Eagle. . .... . 
Memmmouncan enyte Curuie Chair ......2.2.2.2.. 
Semmiwowvuncan Phyfe Arm Chairs ......... 
97A Two English “Late Sheraton” Chairs ....... 
97B Chair from Sheraton’s “Cabinet Dictionary,” 1803 
O7C© French Revolutionary Fauteuil . ... 2... 1... 
Oeeerwousunean Phyfe Side Chairs... .....2.~. 
99 Low-back Chairs Made in Philadelphia ...... 
100 Decorated Chairs with Adaptation of French Features 
Sreemranoeany Chairsand [able ........2... 
fou oatesneraton Chairsand Table ........ 
103A Louis XVI Lit de Repos by G. Jacob, Flare-arm Type 
-103B English Diredfoire Sofa, Scroll-end Type ...... 
104 American Diredfoire Sofa of Flare-arm Type 
tos American Grecian Sofa Made inthe South .... . 
106 Duncan Phyfe Serpentine-back Sofa. ....... 
Sepa euncan Pnyte Lyre-arm Sofa ..:....4... 
108 Roll-arm Sofa Made in Philadelphia. . ...... 
109 Two English Diredfoire Sofas from the ‘Cabinet Dic- 
ST RES FARR Rete nD na Cm et ree ga 
Mmeeraderaton Pedestals 2. ww ee 
110B English Sheraton Pembroke Table ........ 
memeerrencn Direqoire Bedstead... . we es 
ti.) Duncan Phyfe Four-support Table ......... 
112A Duncan Phyfe Lyre-support Table ........ 
Semeeterer pota-table ~~... ke ee a 
Somemeruncan tnyie oofa-table © ...°. 0.5. 3a ew oe. 
ea Duncan Phyfe Deep-end Sideboard ........ 


AMERICAN EMPIRE 


115 Sideboard Closely Following French Empire Style . . 
Hiom American Chest-of-drawers . . . 5... we 
meorrrench Empire Commode «=... 60. 2 ee oe. 
117. Bedgtead with Spiral Twist and Acanthus Posts . . . 


20 


Plate 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


118A Sewing Table Preserving Sheraton Legs ..... . 
118B American Empire Mahogany Chair ........ 
118C American Empire “Fancy” Chair. ........ 


11g 


Bow-front Chest-of-drawers and Late Chairs 


120A Typical Empire Sewing-table . . . . . . 2.» os 
120B Typical Empire Pedestal-table’ . . 2) gee 


121 Pineapple-post Bedstead... . .° 25 eeee 

122 Acanthus-post Bedstead ...°. )° 93 eye 

123. Empire Sofa with Sheraton Back and Diredfoire Arms 

124 Empire Sofa Preserving Direcfoire Characteristics 

125 American Empire Sofa, . ..) 2 (9,3) ee 

126 Typical American Empire Sofa. . 2 ng 
INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE 

127. Drawing-room at Graeme Park, Pennsylvania 

128 Ratcliffe Manor, near Easton, Maryland ...... 

129 State Bedchamber, Mt. Pleasant, Philadelphia 

130 The Captain Cook Room at the Pennsylvania Museum 

131 Parlour at Kenmore, near Fredericksburg, Virginia 

132 Two Doorways at Whitehall, Maryland ..... . 

133. An Adam Mantel at The Lilacs, Philadelphia. . . 

134 Interior of the John C. Stevens House, New York City 
DECORATIVE ACCESSORIES 

135A Walnut and Gilt Mirror, 1750-1765" 9 


135B Mirror by John Elliott & Sons, 1804-1809 . ... . 


136 An Exhibition Room at the Pennsylvania Museum 
137A Mirror of Adam Style » ... 2 7) 
137B Girandole with Four Lights ~. ) . eee 
138 Accessories and Furniture at the Pennsylvania Mu- 
SCUM 6 4 ie gs we) oh cate 
139 Tall Clock by E. Duffield, Philadelphia ...... 
140 Clock, Fluid Lamps, and Old Prints 7 352) 


LINE-CUTS IN TEXT 


Stuart and William and Mary Mirror-contours 
Queen Anne Mirror-contour ©. 79 eee 
Two Curtain-designs from Sheraton’s “Drawing- 


Book” 


FURNITURE 


He, COLONIAL STYLES 


JACOBEAN OR STUART 

WILLIAM AND MARY 

QUEEN ANNE-EARLY GEORGIAN 
CHIPPENDALE 


THE JACOBEAN OR STUART PERIOD 
N GENERAL this is the period of the primitive 


furniture mentioned in the foreword, though an 
abundance of this was made in later years as well, and 
especially in country districts. Even the older colonies 
were still very young, and our ancestors were fighting 
Stern conditions. These matters will be taken up in 
the next chapter, as the beginning of the new century 
affords a better start for a more detailed study of 
circumstances. 

New civilisations like our own are, however, con- 
Stantly surprising us by their productions. By the third 
quarter of the Seventeenth Century excellent furniture 
was already made in the New England centres, fur- 
niture that we may be sure is unquestionably American . 
from the character of oak and other woods employed. 

This furniture includes the cumbersome court-cup- 
boards, press-cupboards, and wainscot chairs, few of 
which are extant and these almost wholly in museums 
or the possession of wealthy collectors. As they very 
closely followed the English types, which can be seen 
in any good book on English furniture, it scarcely 
seems necessary to illustrate them here and more ad- 
visable to take up the smaller pieces, which are favour- 
ites with collectors. 

Some of them date after the close of the period in 
England. All the styles—and particularly the early 
ones—endured longer here, because under existing con- 
ditions they were not so quickly routed by new modes. 
And the remoter settlements naturally trailed the sea- 
ports; so that we shall always find pieces of an earlier 

23 


24 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


Style made after the beginnings of a newer one, the 
types thus overlapping in point of time. 

Native woods were used—oak, maple, pine, fruit- 
and nut-woods and, during the last quarter of the 
seventeenth century, walnut. 


The most ornate furniture of these years was the 
high-backed chair. A very fine pair of them is illus- 
trated in Plate 4. By tradition these particular chairs 
are said to be English, but one of the most experienced 
cabinet-making antique dealers in this country has 
been over them carefully and considers them to be of 
American origin. According to one account they were 
brought to America by William Penn on his last voyage 
here in 1699 and presented to his friend Henry Bab- 
cock. Another says that he made the gift in 1686. 
Either date would sufficiently correspond, as this type 
of chair—with the cresting set between the uprights 
and not above them—appeared in England between 
1680 and 1685. In any event such chairs were made 
here as well as abroad. 

This style derived from French chairs of Louis XIII 
(1610-43) developed on Dutch lines, and migrated to 
England. In these we see the oriental fashions of 
caning and the elaborate cresting of top and stretcher, 
which also will be treated in the origins of our furniture 
in the next chapter. 

After the restoration of the monarchy in England 
under Charles II (May, 1660—February, 1685) the 
Stiff, utilitarian furniture of Cromwell was quickly 
superseded by elaborate pieces, the features of which 
were derived from many sources, and of these the high- 
backed chair was among the most ornate. The spiral 
twist was first employed for the back-uprights but 
about 1680-85 this gave way to the turned supports 


JACOBEAN OR STUART 25 


seen in the chairs illustrated. Throughout the reign, 
however, the Restoration chair, as it is often called, 
preserved the setting of the cresting between the up- 
tights of the back: it was only with the incoming of 
James II (February, 1685—November, 1688) that the 
inferior, because less sturdy and durable, practice began 
of shortening the uprights and dowelling the cresting 
to the tops of the uprights. 

Our American fashions followed the English in all 
these respects. In England the variety of these chairs, 
enduring through these two reigns and into that of 
William and Mary, is amazing, and in my “ Practical 
Book of Learning Decoration and Furniture” I have 
illustrated the twenty main types and given particulars 
for the differentiation of the chairs of the three reigns. 

During the first quarter of the eighteenth century 
the banister-back chair made its appearance—see 
Plate 6 B. This was a strictly American simplification 
of, and derivation from the chair we have been con- 
sidering. In it the Spanish foot or the ball foot with 
shoe, especially characteristic of the William and Mary 
period, was employed and it is properly therefore con- 
sidered in that period, being mentioned here, however, 
because its main constructive features consist of the 
turning so characteristic of the latter part of the Stuart 
period in England and which persisted here for some 
years. It appears in three of the illustrations to this 
chapter. 

From the beginning of the New England settlement 
there were the Carver chairs with turned members and 
spindle backs and also the slat-backs. Very clumsy in 
the early examples, these were gradually refined and 
improved with advancing years and the slat-backs 
endured even into the Queen Anne-Early Georgian 
period. The best of these are attractive in their way 


26 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


for simple furnishing but the point of view humorously 
expressed by House and Garden in the following may 
possibly be worth consideration: 


Exponents of Early American furniture may protest the 
idea, but we have a notion that of all styles it is the one that 
offers the least comfort. In this iconoclastic thought we 
have recently been upheld by a young lady who has been 
Staying in a house furnished completely with primitive Amer- 
ican pieces of great value and rarity. She was literally 
obliged to go to bed to get comfortable! 

Our forebears wore more clothes than we and they were 
raised under a harder regime. ‘To them the slatback and 
the wooden-bottom chair were the veriest epitome of ease. 
But to our softer generation, schooled to expect comfort on 
every muscle, the rigors of some Early American pieces are 
distressing. , 

It might be well for us to undertake a more vigorous 
regime. And yet, when we compare our daily hectic lives 
with the relatively slow lives lived by the Colonial fathers, 
we begin to think that they were the ones to have an easy 
time of it. They may have thought hard chairs comfort- 
able, but could they stand up under the strain of the lives 
many of us lead—the strain of noise and rush and fierce 
business competition? Perhaps they would be the ones who 
would flee to bed to find comfort and ease and tranquillity. 


The chairs used in England under Cromwell ap- 
peared here likewise. These had leather-covered seats 
and backs. 

Through all the various styles from the beginning 
down to the Diredoire period there were sofas with 
backs composed of two or more chair-backs and always 
therefore recognisable as to style from these. When 
day-beds occurred they too may easily be placed 
from their embodying the characteristic features of 
the remaining furniture. 

Of all articles of furniture the chest is the most 


PEATE 2 


A. CARVED OAK CHEST-OF-DRAWERS 
By Courtesy of Metropolitan Museum, New York City 


Photograph by Dillon 


B. SLANT-TOP WALNUT DESK IN TWO PARTS. 1700-1710 
By Courtesy of Howard Reifsnyder, Esq. 


PLATE 2 


A. MAPLE BUTTERFLY TABLE. c. 1700 
Probably made in Coanecticut 


B. PINE GATE-LEG TABLE. LATE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 


Both by Courtesy of Howard Reifsnyder, Esq. 
Photographs by Dillon 


JACOBEAN OR STUART 27 


primitive. As the various nations of Europe emerged 
from the semi-barbarism of the Middle Ages—so far 
as furniture is concerned—the chest was first to appear. 
Primarily it is but a packing-case and hold-all, and if 
anything is removed from its lower portion its contents 
are in confusion. The instinct of man has always been 
both to decorate the chest and to improve it out of its 
inconvenient identity into other more desirable forms 
of furniture. First employed for travelling as well as 
Stationary use, in Italy the chest speedily became the 
wonderful cassone of the Renaissance. 

In America evolution had reached its first stage in 
the popular Hadley chest (found in the Massachusetts 
town of that name or its neighbourhood) where one to 
three drawers were added beneath the chest. The next 
step was the abandonment of the chest portion, as 
shown in Plate 1 A, where we have a veritable chest-of- 
drawers. Though there are here but two of them, 
three or four drawers were not uncommon. 

These three forms overlapped in date—from about 
1675 to 1710—but it was the chest-of-drawers that 
survived: and, then, for further convenience of access, 
this was lifted upon a frame or legs and became the 
highboy. 

The Hadley chests resembled Plate 1 A in general 
appearance, though the design of conventionalised 
leaves and flowers was different and characteristic, and 
they were stained in black and colours. 

Carving in England in Elizabethan and Jacobean 
days was bold rather than fine, and that of raised 
surfaces was usually the scratch-carving: these qual- 
ities persisted in our own product. Patterns were not 
carefully worked out, having the irregularities so 
familiar to us in the oriental rug. The oak chest 
illustrated is much better than many others in this 


28 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


respect, but the differences in the completion of the 
designs at the two ends of the drawers will be noted. 
The decoration of these chests and chests-with-drawers 
was sufficiently various, many of them having the 
spindle or other Jacobean ornament, and others being 
panelled or in bold inlay. The handles were either 
metal drops or wooden knobs. 

Plate 1 B shows a desk of shortly after the be- 
ginning of the new century, with typical Jacobean 
turned framework and recessed ring-turned stretcher. 
These desks were made either in two parts, as in the 
present instance, or in one. When in two pieces the 
base naturally projected to allow the setting in of the 
top. These handles are of the early willow type. More 
usually the desk-frames were constructed with con- 
tinuous outside bracing as in the Butterfly table shown 
in Plate 2 A. 

These “‘ Butterfly”’ tables are great favourites with 
collectors. ‘The illustrated fine original example is of 
about 1700. In general construction they are like the 
“joynt”’ (joined) stool of the period, with the wings 
added. 

The gate-leg table has proved its universal useful- 
ness. It made its first appearance in England during 
the years of Cromwell (1649-1660) and was later 
adopted here. In the well-preserved original specimen 
illustrated in Plate 2 B the handle has been supplied. 
They were usually wooden knobs, though drop handles 
also appeared. 

In addition to the gate-leg a number of small tables 
of varying forms were used: these all have the Stuart 
turning and are therefore immediately recognisable. 

The curious form of table illustrated in Plate 8 A, 
with projecting ends supported by a brace, and found 
in various sizes, made its appearance in the Stuart 


JACOBEAN OR STUART 29 


period, and of course with Stuart framework. It per- 
sisted into later years, taking on the characteristics of 
the period when made. 

No bedsteads of our earlier periods have been pre- 
served. When of American make they were evidently 
merely of framework to be draped, or built in, or to 
be folded up into a closed wall-recess. Probably some 
were imported for the handsomer houses, but they 
have disappeared. 

With the next period we enter upon a more ad- 
vanced condition of living in our colonies, and conse- 
quently upon a development of the furniture in use. 


WILLIAM AND MARY 


LTHOUGH we are so thoroughly conversant 
with the fact it is not always easy for us to 
realise to-day that until the Revolution we were all 
Englishmen. Indeed the whole contest with Great 
Britain, culminating in that war, was upon the basis 
that we were entitled to representation because we 
were Englishmen in America, and were not subjects. 
Save in the colony of New Amsterdam, under 
Dutch ownership, our settlers were overwhelmingly 
of British birth, and except for the modifying influences 
of our new environment our people remained English 
in character and temperament. Even for a surprising 
length of time after our separation London continued 
to be for us the seat of fashion in architecture, decora- 
tion, furniture, and attire. 

It is interesting to remember that till this day 
Englishmen have never regarded us as foreigners. Be- 
fore me is an announcement on a rare-book catalogue, 
which reads: 


This is an early copy of our Catalogue sent to American 
and Foreign Customers in advance of its circulation in Great 
Britain. 


Note the distinction made. 

In a publication that might almost be regarded as 
a British institution, “Whitaker’s Almanac,” immedi- 
ately following the affairs of the British Empire are 
those of the United States of America, and then those 
of ‘Foreign Nations.” 

Just as, therefore, the chair- and cabinet-makers 


of York or Birmingham looked to London for their 
30 


WILLIAM AND MARY 31 


Styles in furniture, so likewise did the craftsmen of 
Boston and Philadelphia; and just as the workman 
of York might use his individuality and make certain 
local variations in the parent mode, so might the New 
England cabinet-maker vary from his prototype— 
and to a greater degree, because of greater isolation 
and divergent local conditions. Notwithstanding these 
minor changes, our furniture styles, until about the 
close of the eighteenth century, are the furniture 
Styles of England, and should bear their names in 
references thereto. In the earlier periods this is com- 
monly neglected, and consequently the reader not only 
gets little idea of the association and (notwithstanding 
all variations) practical identity of our furniture with 
the English styles, but—what is of the greatest moment 
to him—he secures no clear picture of the styles them- 
selves, what furniture belongs to each, the differences 
between the various modes, or the order in which 
these modes appeared. These difficulties are all cleared | 
away by the present systematic method of treatment. 

In many cases the inspiration and the elements 
composing those English styles came from elsewhere, 
and those features will be indicated in this volume; 
for, as has already been intimated in the foreword, 
furniture, to be understood, must be broadly con- 
sidered in its relation to other furniture—the mobiliary 
product of no nation was ever an entity that stood 
alone. 

Briefly, then, we may consider the sources of the 
William and Mary style, and the conditions under 
which it originated and was adopted in America. 

Late in 1688 James II fled from England and men 
of all parties united upon William, Prince of Orange, 
as King. On February 13, 1689, he and his wife Mary 
were proclaimed King and Queen. Constitutional 


32 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


government had been established in England: William 
was its first parliamentary King. Nevertheless he 
showed the strength of his own hand. Government 
was still essentially aristocratic, but wealth had been 
accumulated through trade by many of those of the 
middle classes and these were also now beginning to 
give attention to the adornment of their homes. The 
fact that the Bank of England was established and the 
modern system of finance introduced during this reign 
evidences the consideration given to commercial in- 
terests. And England was now a power of the first 
rank. 

Though their rule was disturbed by conspiracies 
and political intrigues, and though William devoted 
his life to the checking of the power of Louis XIV of 
France, both sovereigns were, through the providing 
of competent designers and workmen, encouragers of 
art. Thousands of French Huguenot craftsmen and 
weavers of the highest class had fled to England as 
the result of the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, in 
1685, bringing with them a knowledge of the beautiful 
workmanship of France under its “Sun-King,” Louis 
XIV. Among these was the eminent Daniel Marot, 
who accompanied William from Holland to England. 
Many fine establishments were erected, furniture was 
developed, and splendid fabrics were woven. In the 
realm of colour it was the most gorgeous period in 
English history—and doubtless some of its “harmonies” 
would displease the refinement of to-day. But these 
were vigorous times. 

Now what were the furniture styles of William and 
Mary? They were one manifestation of the great 
Baroque movement which, like the Renaissance move- 
ment before it, had originated in Italy and swept 
through all Europe. Its characteristics were weight, 


WILLIAM AND MARY 33 


boldness, exuberance, and a large use of the curvilinear 
element, particularly the broken or “Flemish” curve. 

William was a Dutchman: Mary was a Stuart, a 
daughter of James II, but, through years spent in 
Holland, thoroughly imbued with the Dutch tradition. 
Bearing in mind also that many Dutch courtiers and 
craftsmen had come with them and that much furni- 
ture was imported, we may naturally expect the Dutch 
influence to be predominant; and so it was, not only 
in this reign but in the succeeding one of Anne. 

But we shall find a very absorbing interest in the 
manner in which this furniture came into existence. 


THE ROMANTIC ORIGIN OF EARLY AMERICAN FURNITURE 


Not many of us, since our geography days, have 
had occasion to recall the existence of the country down 
at the southwest corner of the map of Europe—little 
Portugal. Yet, a few centuries ago, Portugal was one 
of the great powers. And, what is of much interest 
to us in the story of our furniture, she had immense 
possessions in the East. Had it not been so the mobili- 
ary art of both Europe and America would have been 
very different from what it became. 

The story of that conquest is a romance. In 1486 
Bartolomeo Diaz was driven by violent winds around 
the Cape of Good Hope and saw before him the waters 
of the great Indian Ocean. He was by chance the 
discoverer, but Albuquerque was the conqueror. Many 
of our present-day magnates feel that they are swing- 
ing great enterprises, but the ambition of Albuquerque 
was nothing less than the capture of the entire trade 
of the East and the establishment of a dominion. The 
means he took were of a beautiful and effective sim- 
plicity. From 1510 onward he captured and fortified 
bases at Aden, Ormuz, and Malacca, at the entrances 


34 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


of the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the China Sea - 


into the Indian Ocean, strangled the trade of native 
vessels and took it to his own. And by way of thorough- 
ness he captured other strategic points, such as Goa, 


Ceylon, and the Calebes. In 1516 the Portuguese 


were the first to arrive in China. 

Goa, on the West coast of India, was made the 
Capital of all the Portuguese dominions. It became 
a great city for those days, with, it is said, two hundred 
thousand inhabitants, and its churches and palaces 
were famed throughout the East. From the Red Sea 
to China the Asiatic trade was in the grip of Portugal, 
and Lisbon became the great distributing centre for 
the products of the East. 


If one were buying antique Portuguese furniture — 


he would come upon pieces said to be in the “Goa 
factory style.” These were either made there at the 
instructions of the Portuguese, or made in Portugal 
itself from patterns brought from Goa. 


Such influence is of course reciprocal. The style of 


furniture used in the colony is in general that of the © 
home land, but when pieces are made in the colony, and © 


often by native workmen, they are sure to take on 


native characteristics. Furthermore, native furniture 
and textiles would be shipped home as curiosities and 


the home style would inevitably be modified by adopted _ 


colonial ideas. . 
But how did these ideas reach America? Often by 


roundabout and romantic methods; but the first in- 


fluence was very simple. In 1662 Charles the Gay of 
England married Catherine of Braganza, the daughter 


of the King of Portugal, and, following her, “much 


Indo-Portuguese furniture, of ebony and blackwood, 
richly carved and with twisted columns, was im- 


ported.” Evelyn tells us that “the Queen brought 


WILLIAM AND MARY 35 


over with her such Indian Cabinets as never had been 
seen before.” 

But how apt we are to forget that wisdom—and 
commerce—did: not begin with this generation. As I 
had cause to remark i in my book on “Learning Decora- 
tion and Furniture” the Low Countries were a Receiving 
Station for the furniture-ideas of the whole of southern 
and western Europe. An oriental characteristic brought 
to Portugal would speedily be taken up by its next- 
door-neighbour Spain; and, as the Low Countries were 
not finally freed from Spain till 1648, would thence be 
passed on to Holland, probably often lodging in France 
on its journey. It might appear in Italy as soon or 
earlier, through the Genoan trade with Spain or Lisbon. 
And Spain was of course saturated with Arabic motifs 
as well, introduced by the Moors. 

And so these oriental ideas—and many others with 
them—went merrily floating through the furniture of 
Furope, causing the student no end of difficulty in 
tracing their ramifications. Such, for instance, was 
the shaped, flat stretcher of William and Mary English 
and American furniture: it is credited to Italy—but 
was it or was it not of oriental origin? 

The mention of Spain, just now, recalls a proverb of 
that country: “He who knows he does not know is 
never a fool.”” To which might be added: especially 
when we are all in the same case. But we do know that 
some features were Eastern, and we strongly suspect 
others to be so. The use of caning in seating-furniture 
is undoubtedly oriental. So is the turned spiral twist, 
though the hand-carved twist appeared earlier. Heavy, 
putty-like spiral columns were favourites in Flanders 
early in the Baroque period. To be cautious, one 
might say that there is every probability that the Por- 
tuguese bulb, the so-called Spanish foot, and the 


36 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


cresting of the backs of chairs and their stretchers are 
from the same oriental source; possibly also the spoon- 
ing of the back. The cabriole leg is usually credited 
to China, and certainly existed there before its appear- 
ance in Europe, but its Western use may be but a 
rather natural development from the Baroque broken- 
curve leg previously used. 

As we proceed we shall see how different Anglo- 
Dutch furniture must have been without these features 
—or even without some of them. 

But the power of Portugal declined at home, and 
consequently also in the Orient, and that of Holland, 
then a vigorous nation, took its place. After about a 
century of occupation many of the colonies were 
wrested from Portugal by the Dutch. Ceylon, for 
instance, fell to them in the middle of the seventeenth 
century, and this colony is of importance to Americans, 
as we shall eventually see. (Page 88.) 

The claw-and-ball foot, arriving in England about 
1700 and in use in Queen Anne and especially in 
Chippendale times, is universally considered as being 
simply the Chinese dragon-claw clutching the pearl. 
As this, apparently, was first used in Holland, it prob- 
ably came directly through Dutch enterprises in China. 
Other features may also have arrived direct. 

Many phases of Stuart, William and Mary, and ~ 
Queen Anne furniture resemble that of Louis XIII, 
Louis XIV, and Louis XV of France, but modified by 
the Dutch qualities of homeliness (or, rather, homei- 
ness) and stolidity. Anything approaching lightness 
or buoyancy of spirit is totally lacking in the Dutch 
Styles. 

We cannot by any means condemn or decry these 
types, but if we do not allow the sentimentalism of long 
association to close our eyes we shall see it as it is— 


WILLIAM AND MARY 37 


less majestic and fine than the furniture of Louis 
Quatorze, far less deft, graceful, elegant, and charming 
than that of Louis Quinze. In short, it is Burgher 
furniture as compared with that of King and Courtier; 
Amsterdam or the Hague as contrasted with Paris 
(see Plate 9). Nor is it as fine in conception and design 
as the later English and American furniture of Chippen- 
dale, Hepplewhite, and Sheraton. 

But it is good furniture; often beautiful in its own 
way, homelike, steadfast, and excellent to live with; 
especially to those who have not trained their percep- 
tions to the point that they are satisfied only by the 
highest forms of art. 


And now what of the America of the period? 


THE EARLY COLONIES 


In considering anything in the past we should 
never relax in our attention to dates. Even alone they 
give us much information, and a greater observation 
of them would have saved writers many assertions, 
on their face absurd. In the present instance they will 
instantly make us see how exceedingly new was our 
new land at this period. 

William took the throne in 1688. Though the 
Swedes and Dutch had arrived earlier in the Phila- 
delphia neighbourhood, Penn had landed from The 
Welcome only six years before—in 1682. Governor 
Sayle’s settlement in South Carolina was made in 
1670. The first extant view of what is now New York 
—about 1642—shows a fort, a windmill, and a few 
small houses. The city was not finally surrendered 
to England till 1674. The earliest settlement of 
Virginia, Jamestown, in 1607, was practically anni- 
hilated by sickness and starvation and it was not till 


38 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


1613 that it could be said that ‘Englishmen had 
secured a fairly firm foothold in the Red Man’s land.” 
The Pilgrims landed at Plymouth in 1620, and ten 
years later the Colony of Massachusetts was founded. 
A constant stream of immigration followed, spreading 
into the other New England states. Almost ceasing 
during the eighteen years of the English Civil War and 
the Commonwealth period—1642—1660—colonisation 
revived after the Restoration. 

In these last years of the seventeenth century we 
can say that the settlements were thriving, but that 
back of them lay a wilderness. Roads were but trails, 
and in wet weather trails of mud. Our people were 
still largely concerned with the securing of a degree 
of permanence, safety, and household comfort, but, as 
we have seen, excellent furniture was already produced 
and competent workmen were continually coming from 
the home-land. So, though we still find the homely 
product of joiners, we also encounter William and Mary 
furniture worthy of its name and lineage. 

Naturally, in date American furniture trailed the 
earliest English examples; for we must not only allow 
time for a certain style to become sufficiently estab- 
lished and popular enough for the likelihood of copy- 
ing (and this necessity is too frequently lost sight of) 
but also a short period for it to be transferred and 
become popular here. ‘This interval would consider- 
ably vary, according to conditions and closeness of 
intercourse. At some periods and in some places some 
American furniture of a new style might be made here 
shortly after its original appearance, but we must be 
rather careful not to date the general product—the 
“run’’—of a particular style too early. 

We must also remember that, as has been said, 
each mode would endure later than in England, for it 


WILLIAM AND MARY 39 


would not so soon be superseded by the succeeding 
type. We can only date according to known prob- 
abilities, for exceedingly little American furniture is 
“documented” and family traditions are so notoriously 
untrustworthy as often indeed to be ridiculous. We 
shall find wills, descriptions, and other surviving 
records a reliable aid, and, in later periods, advertise- 
ments. | 

Owing to the continued resistance of James, William 
and Mary were not really settled upon the throne till 
the Battle of the Boyne, July 1, 1690. We were not 
as yet avidly following the London fashions and we 
can scarcely count upon furniture of that style being 
made here before 1692 to 1695. The reign lasted but 
fourteen years, but the style endured here for a dozen 
or more years after William’s death. 

In reviewing the American furniture of this period 
we should realise that probably the larger proportion 
of it was of New England make. But, though Penn- 
sylvania was so very new, it was settled by intelligent, | 
well-to-do people, its climate was less severe than that 
of the north, and its progress was exceedingly rapid. 
Excellent workmen must have been among the first 
settlers or have followed soon after, for even in this 
period very fine furniture was made in Philadelphia 
and that city continued to be notable in this respect 
until the cessation of all good mobiliary art about 1825. 

In Virginia and Carolina, owing to the profitable 
cultivation of tobacco and rice, life had already taken 
on its well-known picturesque aspect. At this period 
there was no manufacture in those colonies, and very 
little later. Furniture was imported from England, 
being charged against existing credits, and, to a lesser 
extent, brought,. coastwise, from Philadelphia and 
other northern ports. 


40 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


THE FURNITURE 
CHAIRS 

As we have seen in the Stuart chapter, the elabo- 
rate, high-backed chair of Charles II extended into the 
reign of James, but the cresting of the back was set 
over the supports instead of between them as formerly. 
This later fashion now persisted into the reign of 
William and Mary, there being a number of variations 
in details. Very soon, however, these chairs became 
simplified into the type illustrated in the example at 
the left in Plate 3. Except in the cresting, elaboration 
has now gone by the board, and upholstering or leather 
frequently take the place of caning. The Flemish 
scroll has disappeared, the front stretcher is simply 


turned with the Portuguese bulb at its centre, and the 


feet are “Spanish.” 


Later still, we find that the cresting has been reduced 


to the simple design seen in the central chair in Plate 3, 
that the back is spooned, and, what is of great im- 
portance, that the turned back-supports, or Stiles, 
which had endured through so many years and through 
such a variety of changes, have now given way to a 
completely framed back. This framework is now 
moulded. 

It is but seldom that we find in American chairs 
the flat, shaped or serpentine stretcher that plays so 
large a part in the William and Mary legged-furniture 
of England, but it is one of the notable features of the 
highboys and lowboys. 

The Banister-backed chair was also prominent. 
It was an American development through certain 
natural suggestions of it that we see in some English 
chairs. The example illustrated in Plate 6 B preserves 
the baluster-turning of legs and arm-supports of the 
Stuart years but the feet and modified bulbs of the 


“ee 


bia i + 
dutta *. 


i 
i 


CONCORD ANTIQUARIAN SOCIETY. EAST 
Early-Georgian Highboy and Bedstead, William and Mary chairs in 


FRONT CHAMBER 


centre, Hepplewhite chair on the right 


—- —" ee = ‘ee —- s -— 


Ge *bsq ‘sapdusyiay psemoy jo Asaqno5 Ag 
SUIVHO Il SATUVHD ‘orér *D “sapis ajdey “quo. anuye\ “XOPHOIH AUV GNV WVITIIA 
ni : . voriq 4q ydesSo10yg. 


’ 


PLATE 4 


PLATE 5 


; Fhotograph by Dillon 
’ A. BURL WALNUT DESK. C. 1705 B. WALNUT DESK WITH THREE FRONT FEET. C. 1710 
Metropolitan Museum Howard Reifsnyder, Esq. 


PIA LEO 


wunasnyy vrueayAsuuag jo Asaimoy Ag 
YIVHD WOVE UALSINVEA “A 


*bsq ‘sapAusyiay psremopy jo Asaisnoy Ag 
_4&4t JO XOM-ATdIa *St-0141 “Lada HSINVdS HLIM ATAVL-ONISSAYA YO -ONILTYM AIaVW “V 
uoyiq Aq ydessoi04g 


WILLIAM AND MARY 41 


Stretcher place it with William and Mary furniture. 
Many of these chairs have the Spanish foot. As will 
readily be seen they are simplifications of the elaborate 
Stuart chair and almost all of them retain the cresting, 
though in some it is much modified. 

A few day-beds with William and Mary char- 
acteristics have come down to us. 

A slat-back chair with the large ball-foot appearing 
in so much William and Mary furniture, and with 
a very marked and comfortable “rake” in all its up- 
rights, is seen in Plate 13 A. Such pieces are excellent 
for simple interiors. 


HIGHBOYS, LOWBOYS, AND TABLES 


The fine highboy illustrated in Plate 4 is of the 
perfected type of the period. In the earliest examples 
the three arches of the base were (very exceptionally) 
absent or (usually) alike, leaving an equal space above 
them, occupied except in primitive pieces by one long 
drawer across the front. When the type was developed 
by raising and so differentiating the central arch, the 
arrangement of drawers appropriately became that of 
the illustration. 

Following English precedent throughout, the top 
mouldings in this highboy—made in New England— 
are deeper than in earlier examples, where they are of 
the simplest description. Even in the severe mould- 
ings we may be able to determine which in fact made 
its earliest appearance, but their wse was decidedly ir- 
regular. Provided that the cabinet-maker could feel 
that he was adhering to what was appropriate to the 
type, he would be apt to choose what his fancy, or 
his resources, indicated at the time. The proportions 
of the piece would also have influence. 

In English furniture we can often note the effect 


i: ak Te Beta 
42 AMERICAN FURNITURE ” 


of the two diverse influences of France and Holland; 
and that contest—all unconsciously to our workmen, 
probably—seems to have transferred itself to America 
as well: among highboys, for instance, there are those 
of the slenderness and elegance of Plate 4 and others 
with the heaviness and “squatness” characteristic of 
Dutch furniture. 

The inception of each new feature in English fur- 
niture has accurately been dated by the authorities of 
that country. The late Percy Macquoid and Mr. 
Herbert Ceszinsky, the greatest living authority on the 
subject, unite in giving 1690 as the earliest date of 
the appearance in England of the inverted-cup turned 
leg and the Portuguese bulb. The matter is perfectly 
simple—these features came in from Holland with 
William and his workmen. Such novelties were of 
course first made for the King and the nobility: how 
long would be required for these new fashions to reach 
our American workmen, be accepted by clients, and 
rendered into actual furniture? If we say that no high- 
boys with cup-turning or the Portuguese bulb could 
have been made here before 1692 we shall certainly 
be within reason. Considering the tardiness with 
which the Queen Anne and Chippendale styles were 
taken up here under later and more favourable circum- 
Stances, about 1700 would probably be nearer the 
mark. Any earlier chests on stands that we may find 
referred to in inventories would have had the plain 
turned or the spiral leg of the Stuart reigns. 

The only possible manner in which the cup and 
bulb could have had an earlier appearance here than 
1692 would be through direct derivation from Holland, 
and as these highboys so closely followed the English 
Style this seems unlikely. 

In England the trumpet and the peg-top turned 


WILLIAM AND MARY 43 


legs and the square-pedestal leg came in at the same 
time—1690: here, the trumpet form seems to be 
rather later, while the other two appear not to have 
been made. All four forms were first developed in 
France under Louis XIII and his successor. 

Still following the English development, to a 
number of the later highboys the torus frieze (a very 
broad rounded moulding) was added, as the front to 
an upper drawer. The torus had appeared in Italy 
as early as the building of the Farnese palace by 
Vignola, about 1570, where it was used above door- 
ways, and it became very usual all through Europe 
during the Baroque seventeenth century. 

A few cupboards with bases like the highboys also 
occurred. ‘These had solid doors. 

Lowboys were made to match the highboys and 
were used as dressing-tables. In the highboys the 
Stretchers followed the form of the arches above them: 
in the lowboys they but occasionally did so and were 
usually serpentine, sometimes with a central finial. 

The drawers of these pieces, and especially the 
finer examples, were frequently veneered in walnut 
or maple. A few highboys were japanned. 

Small tables followed much the same lines as the 
lowboys. 

The dressing-table illustrated in Plate 6 A is of the 
very end of the period, and in this will be noted the 
very important introduction of the cabriole leg, des- 
tined to prevail in furniture for the next fifty years. 
It is still in primitive form, heavy and remaining square 
as originally cut out, collared on the outward sides, 
and with Spanish foot. The apron in this dressing- 
table is of unusual design. This piece of furniture was 
purchased from the Estate of Harriet Randolph and 
as it had been in the possession of her grandmother, 


44. AMERICAN FURNITURE 


hence probably belonged either to Captain Edward 
Fitz Randolph of General Anthony Wayne’s Division 
or to Joseph Richardson, the silversmith, on the 
maternal side. 


DESKS 


Plate 5 illustrates two fine slant-top desks, the 
first closed and the second showing the interior. Both 
have the ball or “bun”’ feet, the. latter being most 
unusual in its possession of three of them in front. 
The waved apron was more frequently seen in England 
in this period than here. In Fig. A the drawers are 
handsomely veneered in burl walnut. 

Higher secretaries with drawers and pigeon-holes 
also appeared. Some had a falling-front on which to 
write, and others the slanting top. 


BRASSES 


The handles and key-plates of the period are well 
shown in the illustrations. The drop-handles appear- 
ing in Plate 5 A are the earlier. In the others the bails 
are fastened with bent wires. Sometimes the plates 
were plain, as in the dressing-table, and sometimes 
engraved as in Plate 5 B. 


Naturally furniture of these earlier periods is 
scarce—it is surprising that there is as much of it as 
there is. If the reader were to look up such plans or 
illustrations as exist of our cities even as late as 1725, 
he would realise what comparatively small towns they 
were and how few would be the houses apt to contain 
furniture of the better grade. “[wenty-five years later 
still, in 1750, the population of Philadelphia, then the 
largest “city”? on the continent, was 12,500 souls! 


THE QUEEN ANNE—EARLY GEORGIAN 
PERIOD 


ENGLAND UNDER ANNE AND HER SUCCESSORS 


NNE was an Englishwoman and a Stuart—the 

second daughter of James II. Why, then, it may 

be asked, did the mobiliary modes of her reign continue 

to be Dutch?—thus of course affecting American as 
well as English furniture. 

It has been said that it is not Kings and Courts 
that influence styles in furniture, but the cabinet- 
makers. In degree this very much depends. We can 
hardly ascribe the tremendous swing from the Puritan- 
ical, utilitarian styles of Cromwell to the efflorescent 
modes of Charles the Gay to cabinet-makers: on the 
other hand the virile genius of a Chippendale was 
able to impress his own fashions upon all Britain — 
without the slightest consideration of His Majesty 
George the Second. There exists another situation— 
that where the craftsmen are let alone and among 
them there is no disturbing genius. In that case they 
pursue their own generally even way. 

And so it was during the reign of Queen Anne. By 
now the Dutch tradition had stamped itself upon the 
life of the court, upon manners, upon architecture, and 
furniture; and, though the modes were changed, the 
new was even more Dutch than the old! The craftsmen 
were undisturbed, for Anne was not a woman of marked 
intelligence. She has been described as of “colourless 
personality”’ and her court as “rather dowdy.” As, 
after William had landed in 1688, she wished him 
success against her own father, James, it is easy to 
divine where lay her sympathies. There were always 

45 


46 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


foreign wars, but the new idea by which the sovereign 
put himself in harmony with parliament by choosing 
his ministry from the majority in the house had been 
discovered “‘almost by accident” and brought political 
peace within the nation itself. She herself disturbed 
it by her intrigues to secure the succession to the 
“Pretender,” her half-brother, but this was at the 
very end of her life and her machinations failed. She 
reigned but twelve years—from 1702 to 1714. 

Heavy, ornate furniture was made for the nobility, 
but the tremendous expense of the incessant foreign 
wars of William and of Anne sat heavily upon the re- 
sources of the people and the more typical furniture of 
Anne’s reign was very simple: on the other hand, the 
comparatively well-to-do trading class was rapidly 
increasing, supplying abundant work for the chair- 
and cabinet-makers—the two trades were then distinct. 

The remnants of feudalism, the autocratic rule of 
kings, and romanticism had gone by the board, and 
from now onwards we find a colder, more matter-of-fact, 
more modern, and materialistic spirit, very appreci- 
ative of success and creature comforts. The literature 
of eighteenth century England gives us the key: able 
as it was, it was a very different literaturé from that 
of Shakespeare and Marlowe, Milton and Donne. 

It was at just about this period that all through 
Europe dawned the desire for real physical ease and 
convenience, and that dug, early in the eighteenth 
century, that “Deep Dividing Line” between all furni- 
ture and decoration preceding it and that which fol- — 
lowed that I have described and emphasised in my 
book on “Learning Decoration and Furniture.” This 
change was gradual and transitional, but sweepingly 
effective. The differences between the furniture of 
William and Mary and their successor are perhaps not 


QUEEN ANNE—EARLY GEORGIAN 47 


so radical as those between the styles of Louis XIV 
and Louis XV but they are notable and will presently 
be seen. 

The period we are now considering extended far 
beyond the reign of Anne, for no new, virile style arose 
to take the place of the current mode till the advent 
of Chippendale in 1748. The intervening time may be 
characterised as years of drift. The first George was 
a Hanoverian who could not speak English, and his 
influence upon the world of furniture and decoration 
was non-existent. His successor was of stronger per- 
sonality, but troubled himself about none of these 
things. There were developments of a sort: the most 
notable of these being, perhaps, the ‘‘architect’s 
furniture” of 1720-50. The heavy, ostentatious, 
gilded furniture of the then well-nigh tasteless aris- 
tocracy was, fortunately, not introduced into America 
and need not be dwelt upon here. The lion mahogany 
furniture was likewise absent. 

Almost immediately upon the accession of Anne 
in 1702 came the mentioned development in the direc- 
tion of comfort that had been foreshadowed in the 
very last days of William—his consort, Mary, had 
died of smallpox in 1694. Tall, stiff backs gave way 
“to those of moderate height, spooned to fit the spinal 
column of humanity: the straight leg was abandoned 
in favour of the universal cabriole. 7 

Queen Anne furniture was, it is true, less formal, 
less elegant than that of William and Mary, but it not 
only was, it looked more comfortable—and more 
Dutch. 

With us, across the Atlantic, this lead was of course 
followed, but at an interval of a dozen years or more. 
All experts with whom I have talked unite in feeling 


48 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


that nearly all American furniture is usually dated 
too early. 

And this brings us to the American scene of the 
eighteenth century. 


THE COLONIES FIND THEMSELVES 
1700-1776 

The story of colonisation in America may be 
summed up in one word—energy. While such must 
be the story in every like enterprise, there seemed to 
have been something well-nigh superhuman in the 
American case. While, as we have seen, at the first 
date appearing above the colonists had but secured 
a firm foothold, at the latter a nation had been made 
and was ready to be born. 

Climate undoubtedly had its part—that American 
air and sudden changes are exciting, or at least stimu- 
lating, is evidenced by the whole character of our 
people. 

But did not the opportunity presented have still 
greater effect? Save for the few, those who came to 
our shores had, in one direction or another, been among 
the “‘held down.’ Freedom, both to succeed and to 
carry out one’s own ideas, seemed at last at hand. 
Naturally some prospered better than others, so that 
an aristocracy of success developed in every colony— 
for in essentials humanity does not change:—* plus ¢a 
change, plus ce la méme chose.” But, aven ability 
and “‘luck,” there was here nothing, at least, to forbid 
any man taking his rightful place. | 

The suppressed religionist—and how many of them 
were that—was now to find a home where he could — 
worship the God of his conception in his own manner. 
A very cruel God they imagined often, who damned 
without stint for honest relaxations or harmless pec- 


QUEEN ANNE—EARLY GEORGIA 49 


cadillos; but so they conceived Him. And so they 
worshipped Him, and having themselves found freedom, 
Straightway proceeded to put the yoke of persecution, 
or ostracism, upon the neck of every other man who 
did not hold their conception. I need not instance 
cases—they are too well known. And the Anglican 
church established itself by law wherever an oppor- 
tunity was given it to do so and did not prove itself 
much more tolerant than at home. Indeed, toleration 
was not esteemed a virtue in those days and was 
scarcely practiced elsewhere than in Maryland and 
Pennsylvania. The rule was to “contend for the 
faith’’—as each of the disputing bodies saw it for them- 
selves—and they contended mightily. We cannot 
deny that they were earnest. 

A grinding fight for life itself was the lot of the 
first settlers, particularly in New England’s stern 
climate and rock-strewn soil. And they were poor, 
those early Pilgrims—small tradesmen, petty farmers, 
and workmen. Though in their hardness they pitied 
not themselves or others, our hearts go out to them. 
But soon, through unceasing energy in this new land, | 
they knew more of comfort than they had ever known 
before. 

The Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony 
were in better case and were well supplied with goods. 
Difficulties were there too, but they succeeded against 
heavy odds in wresting a living and often wealth from 
soil or sea. | 

In the various colonies, adventurers, redemptioners, 
solid men, all had their chance. Strife for Profit and 
Power—the two great well-springs of human action— 
functioned royally. The seaboard settlements became 
small cities, with many comforts and teeming life; the 


50 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


wilderness was honeycombed as far as Ohio, Kentucky, 
and ‘Tennessee. 

And these pioneers were their own masters: what 
wonder that independence grew in the spirit of America? 
For a new land, production became enormous, not only 
in agriculture, including rice and tobacco, but in live- 
stock, furs, lumber and the like. Household art and 
manufactures flourished; iron was mined. As a people 
we were self-supporting and prosperous, bringing from 
abroad only luxuries and foreign products, such as tea, 
coffee, fine textiles, china and porcelain, fashionable 
attire, pictures, and European books. And for these 
we had abundance to ship in return. 

Not only the land but the sea gave us wealth. The 
fishing, whaling, and trading industries grew to large 
proportions. We built ships and sailed them till 
England itself grew mutinous at our competition. In 
times of war between England and other powers, 
privateering against the enemy was profitable indeed, 
and much loot, including the finest silks and wines, 
found its way into our seaboard homes. In times of 
peace we carried on a huge trade with the West Indies, 
Europe, and the East. And—as bunkum finds short 
shrift in this brief chronicle—be it said that smuggling, 
slave-trading, privateering, or evasions of the law 
founded the wealth of many an American family. 

If Energy was the keynote of our success, the word 
Jealousy rather well covers the cause of the growing 
tension between the homeland and ourselves. On the 
English side it is of course too embrasive an expression; 
for the American colonies then occupied a very small 
portion of the attention of the British nation as a 
whole: but time and again the enterprise of those 
colonies proved a thorn in the flesh of British merchants 


QUEEN ANNE—EARLY GEORGIAN SI 


and shippers, and those interests made themselves very 
distinctly heard in government circles. 

Of the new America there were, naturally, two con- 
ceptions. One of them was this: England had founded, 
nurtured, and protected the colonies, and they were 
hers. The founding had been at the sacrifice of life 
and treasure; it had been done through much enter- 
prise. The recompense to Spain of her conquests in 
the new continent had been millions in gold. In our 
success we should, as colonies, be a paying investment, 
and, to put it succinctly, England “needed the money.” 
Furthermore and finally, as colonies, we should be 
well under control. Instead of such a result, we were 
in many ways becoming competitors, and we were dis- 
tinctly restive and rebellious under kindly guidance. 
So, on the one hand. | 

On the other, we had through superhuman effort 
wrought out our own salvation from starvation, 
disease, and massacre by the Red Man. If England 
had protected us from France and Spain, so had our 
men, as soldiers, fought side by side with Englishmen 
in foreign wars. Our success was deserved, and we 
purposed to reap its benefits. We were Englishmen, 
yet we had no voice in the affairs of England; and, 
what was much more to the point, regulations and 
taxes, just or unjust, might be placed upon ourselves 
without let or hindrance, because of our lack of repre- 
sentation in the British parliament. 

Most of the royal governors placed over the prov- 
inces were here for their enrichment and that of their 
satellites: many were autocratic and overbearing, cared 
little for the welfare of the people, and exploited the 
province for the benefit of Great Britain. But—the 
Colonial Assemblies held the purse for the payment of 


52 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


government, and they used their power. When the 
first Continental Congress met, the end was at hand. 


Material prosperity and social eminence are not 
all of life, and the long list of men justly to be called 
great who sprang from American soil and were fore- 
most in its affairs upon the eve of revolution attests 
the intellectual cultivation we had reached. Some of 
us, because of the wrong-headedness of his earlier 
eulogists, formerly rather disliked Washington as an 
able prig: now that we know the man, he looms as very 
human and probably greatest. of them all. Another, 
born in New England, and emigrating to Pennsylvania, 
seems especially typical of America—Benjamin Frank- 
lin. Most good enterprises, from fire-insurance to 
philosophical societies, had their beginnings in Phila- 
delphia, and in most of these that genial, humourous 
man, of comfortable figure but tireless energy, was 
foremost. Of lowly origin and in his success pursuing 
his own ways, he was not greatly in favour among the 
aristocrats; and, doubtless to his own gratified amuse- 
ment, was idolised by the politest court in Christendom 
—that of France. 

Our progress in the arts was, for a new nation, very 
satisfactory: in architecture, furniture, and decoration 
in the Chippendale period, after 1760, it was phenom- 
enal. But that is not yet: we shall now see the furniture 
of the Queen Anne—Early Georgian type. 


THE AMERICAN FURNITURE OF THE PERIOD 


There are two facts to be recognised in connexion 
with this furniture: 

I. It began late and ended late. Anne took the 
English throne in 1702 and was dead by 1714. The 
Style continued under the early Georges, but it is 


QUEEN ANNE—EARLY GEORGIAN 53 


doubtful if there was much Queen Anne furniture in 
America before her death—perhaps we had a few 
chairs of that style before that date. 

It was also slow in development. There were 
always survivals in England, but features from the 
preceding period were particularly persistent here. 
We do not now know whether the state of mind evi- 
denced by our furniture was conservatism or dislike. 
As regards the cabriole leg it would appear to have 
been the latter, for even when the bow-back was 
adopted in chairs the William and Mary turned leg 
with Spanish foot often held its own against the new- 
comer (Plate 7 A) and the Spanish foot frequently clung 
to the cabriole leg. 

In England this leg appeared in fine proportion 
very quickly after Anne’s accession. The knees were 
at first plain, but soon became ornamented with the 
shell and, much more rarely, the acanthus-leaf. This 
lead was followed here, but more slowly. 

II. Some of these pieces—and especially chairs— 
look so absolutely Dutch that sometimes we might 
suspect a direct Hollandish origin: but it is doubtful 
if we ever need go further than England for the pre- 
cedent of any American piece of this period. English 
authorities are perfectly frank as to the origin of the 
Style, and it is a simple fact that in furniture London 
was as Dutch as Amsterdam. The eastern counties of 
England, whence came many to the Massachusetts 
Bay settlements of Boston and Salem, must have been 
especially permeated with this feeling through small 
shipping plying to and fro between themselves and 
their neighbours of the Zuider Zee. 


CHAIRS 


One of the cases where from general aspect we 
might suspect direct Dutch influence is in the maple 


54 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


chair shown in Plate 7 B, and especially because of its 
base. Yet I have before me the illustration of an 
original English chair in the hands of a London dealer 
with the same square cabriole leg of a like heaviness, 
the same square feet, and the same recessed stretchers. 
The American stretchers are set rather ower than in 
the English example, and it is probably this that gives 
it both an especially Dutch and a more primitive 
appearance. 

It is in seating-furniture that, in all ages, changes 
are first made—probably because of its intimate use. 

In the two periods previously reviewed the back- 
rest, of whatever character it might be, did not join 


the seat-rail, but was connected with a piece crossing — 


between the back supports, or stiles. This practice 
was continued in the transition chair shown in Plate 
7 A, but quickly gave way to a sounder construction— 


especially better for these back-splats composed of 


one piece of rather springy nature. ‘The splat there- 


fore now joins the seat-rail as in figure B of the same 


plate. Though these splats considerably varied, almost 
all bear a sufficient resemblance in form to the objects 
that gave them their names—the vase or fiddle-back, 
they are called. In some late examples the splats are 
pierced, this being the beginning of the style of back 
taken over by Chippendale and with which we are 
so familiar. 

In the last chair of William and Mary it was noted 
that the back-supports were not turned but moulded; 
and this treatment persists. Observe the slight orna- 


ment at the top of the back in these two chairs and 


behold what is left of the lofty cresting of Charles II 
and his successor! 

So far, the seats remain straight in front. In the 
base of the transition chair all the features of the 


A. NEW ENGLAND TRANSITION CHAIR, 
By Courtesy Mary H. Northend 


Cort716 


Photograph by Dillon 
B. EARLY QUEEN ANNE MAPLE CHAIR, C. 1715 
By Courtesy Howard Reifsnyder, Esq. 


PUATESS 


B. WALNUT SIDE CHAIRS OF THE FINEST TYPE, 1725-40 


By Courtesy of Howard Reifsnyder, Esq. 
Photographs by Dillon 


BEATE 


A. LOUIS XV FAUTEUIL. FRANCE 
By Courtesy of Kate Villiers Clive and The Connoisseur, London 


B. QUEEN ANNE WALNUT ARM CHAIR, C. 1725 
By Courtesy of Abbot McClure, Esq. 


The likenesses and differences between the French and the Anglo-Dutch 
styles will be seen by a comparison of these two fine examples 


PLATE, 10 


at 


A. LABELLED WALNUT ARM CHAIR BY WILLIAM SAVERY 
PHILADELPHIA 


B. THE LABEL ON ABOVE CHAIR. SEE TEXT 
By Courtesy of Howard Reifsnyder, Esq. 
Photographs by Whitenack 


PLATE: tx 


” 

“ 
= 
1 
= 


A. GEORGIAN WING-CHAIR 
Eagle-Head Knees 
By Courtesy Metropolitan Museum 


meee 
ak eae ® 


B. QUEEN ANNE TRANSITION TO CHIPPENDALE, C. 1760 
Loaned to the Pennsylvania Museum 
by Mrs. James S. Merritt, Abington, Pa. 


PLATE. 13 


LeZr 


Lasdd LAYOV ad 


HLIM SYAMVUC-AO-LSAHD ‘A 


uojjiq 4q sydes%o104g 
“bsq ‘sapAusziay premoy jo Asazinoy Ag 


S-&41 ‘XOGHOIH AIdVW dOL LY14 


PLATE. 13 


A. WILLIAM |& MARY CHAIR. QUEEN ANNE DROP-LEAF TABLE 
By Courtesy Howard Donaldson Eberlein, Esq. 


Ge 


Photograph by Dillon 
B. MAPLE TWO-PIECE DESK, 1725-30 
By Courtesy Howard Reifsnyder, Esq. 


uoriq 4q sydeiso10y4g 
“bsq ‘sapAusyiay premoy jo Asaanoy Ag 


_anuINy $,I98INYIIV,, UITI0ay Jo sajdwiexa aurz 
YV1dOd NI LYSOTO-VNIHD YANUOD ‘A ANId NI GUYVOddND YWANUYOD “V 


QUEEN ANNE—EARLY GEORGIAN s5 


previous period continue—including our old acquaint- 
ances the Portuguese bulb and the Spanish foot. In 
figure B, previously referred to, the stretchers remain— 
though they, too, soon are abandoned—but we have 
the real cabriole leg. It is still square, rather clumsy, 
and has a squared club foot, but it is cabriole. 

The rounded club foot (see Plate 9 B) came in with 
Anne and is one of the features of the style, but was by 
no means universal. The claw-and-ball had first 
appeared in England, very infrequently, just before 
the close of the preceding century, and that and the 
web foot (Plate 8 A) are now also common in legged 
furniture. Some pointed club feet occur. 

By about 1720 or 1725 it is noted by makers that 
Stretchers are neither necessary nor advisable in the 
new type, and these follow other discarded elements: 
the process may even be seen in Plate 9 B which 
retains but a solitary back-brace. 

The particular—and peculiar—form of arm-support 
in all three arm chairs illustrated here is not without 
precedent in England. The entirely unbroken head- 
rest in Plate 9 B is unusual. Seat-rails now became 
rounded or shaped. 

About 1725 the straight stiles of the early examples 
are broken by a “hitch” or sharp inward curve a little 
above the seat-rail. ‘This is seen in Plates 8 B, 9 B, and 
10 A, and it is generally retained until the transition 
into the Chippendale type, Plate 11 B. 

The pair of side chairs in Plate 8 B (there are three 
of them in the hands of the present owner) illustrate 
the most ornamental type of the period as appearing 
in America. The shaping of the seat-rails, the fine 
carving, the excellent use of the Queen Anne shell and 
the acanthus leaf upon the knees are all clearly seen 
in the illustration. The latter feature is infrequent in 


ee? ims arate 2 


56 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


American work of this period and not very general 
in early Queen Anne chairs in England, but it was one 
of the features giving name to the “cabochon-and- 
leaf”? type taken over and developed—as we shall see 
—by the Chippendale school. 

The covering of the chair to the right in Plate 8 B 
was worked by members of the well-known Burd 
family of Philadelphia and was taken from a piece of 
furniture from their equally famous house, now long 
since demolished. The chairs themselves came from 
another old family in the same city. 

The arm chair in Plate to is a labelled piece by the 
now celebrated William Savery of Philadelphia, who 
did not make the Chippendale highboys with Rococo 


ornament attributed to him a few years ago, but who — 


was, nevertheless, a craftsman of excellence. As will 
be seen by the reproduction, the upper portion of the 
label is missing, owing to a repair-piece (also clearly 
discernible) having been set in the back of the chair 
at some former period of its existence. As six labelled 
Savery pieces, in all, have now been discovered, the 
label is immediately recognisable. This chair exhibits 
the fine quality of Philadelphia workmanship. 

The mention of the word Rococo in the above 
paragraph reminds me that it should be said that this 
Queen Anne-Early Georgian style must not be con- 
sidered as Rococo—the Rococo style consists of much 
more than the cabriole leg. We shall see an abundance 
of it in the next chapter, but the Queen Anne Style is 
an extension of the Baroque movement. 

The last chair appearing here, Plate 11 B, preserves 
many of the features of the Queen Anne Period, but 
in its reversion to the straight seat-rail and back-up- 
rights, and particularly in the development of the 
“cupid’s-bow”’ top-rail, it has taken on characteristics 


a Or 7 
oe 


QUEEN ANNE—EARLY GEORGIAN 57 


of the coming Chippendale type. The reason for 
adding the word “type” to Chippendale’s name will 
be abundantly evident when we reach the next chapter. 
This chair was part of the wedding furniture of Ann 
Edwards who married Joseph Russell in 1760 and this 
date coincides with the introduction of the Chippendale 
Style into America. 

In the fine Georgian wing-chair in the Metropolitan 
Museum (Plate 11 A) the eagle’s-head knee, frequent 
in those years in England, will be noted. The wing 
or easy chair was a favourite of the period, the bases 
having the various types of legs and feet that we have 
already seen. 

It was very late in this period or early in the next 
that the Windsor chair madé its appearance. It is 
found in infinite variety, and is appropriate to the 
porch, the kitchen, and the interior of the genuine 
farm-house. Its use in connexion with the better 
grade of furniture is a decorative error. And the 
modern making of it in mahogany is a like anomaly. 
A chair in every way better adapted to general fur- 
nishing will be suggested in the next chapter. 

More suitable to general simple furnishing than the 
Windsors were the plain side and arm chairs with 
rush seats, fiddle-back, and turned members. Some 
of them had almost straight legs with club-feet; others 
were entirely straight, being turned to the bottom of 
the legs. 

Roundabout chairs were made, with either turned 
or cabriole legs. 


SOFAS 


The sofas current in these years naturally followed 
the chairs in their characteristics. The type is exempli- 
fied by a fine sofa now in the Metropolitan Museum, 


58 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


originally purchased by Governor James Logan from 
a Philadelphia cabinet-maker for his celebrated man- 
sion Stenton in Germantown. It is of walnut, with 
shell knee, web feet, wing arms, and high entirely up- 
hol&tered back with waved outline. The covering is of 
eighteenth century red velvet. Straight topped uphol- 
Stered backs were also made. 

Small sofas in this and other periods were called 
love-seats. 


TABLES 


The writing-table with its noticeably long, under- 
braced top, illustrated in Plate 8 A, is the survival of 
a type found in the Stuart period, with the new leg 
substituted for the straight, turned, and braced legs 
then in vogue. 

Drop-leaf and dining-tables, all of course with the 
cabriole leg, were common in this period. I think the 
example of the former shown in Plate 13 A might be 
said to be well-shod. It is certainly “of a Dutchness,” 
and attractive in its very quaintness. 

Tea-tables now became very frequent—marking 
an advance in social life. They were both circular and 
rectangular and were appropriately slender in build, 
usually having waved aprons of the types shown in 
the highboy and desk—Plates 12 A and 13 B 


DESKS 


These continued in both the two-piece (Plate 13 B) 
and one-piece types of the previous period, but with 
the developed cabriole leg. As the one-piece type 
was the simpler and more elegant, it became the more 
frequent as the period progressed and finally survived 
the other construction. 

Very rarely we encounter a secretary-bookcase of 


QUEEN ANNE—EARLY GEORGIAN 59 


this period. They are of the same type as the desks 
with a cabinet top added. 


HIGHBOYS AND LOWBOYS, CHESTS-OF-DRAWERS, AND CUPBOARDS 


The viewing of human nature must indeed be sport 
for the gods. We find that a certain condition is not 
quite ideal and instead of simply remedying it and 
being done with it, we must needs fly to the other 
extreme. It was discovered that bending to the lower 
drawer of a chest-of-drawers was a bit inconvenient, 
and so the piece was raised on legs: not satisfied with 
this it must then burgeon out at the zo? till it reached 
the towering altitude of the highboy in Plate 12 A. 
Perhaps the English were less fond of climbing than 
we, or perhaps step-ladders were fewer: in any event 
the highboy there dropped back into a chest-of- 
drawers—and they were precisely where they were 
before! Americans continued to climb till near the 
end of the next period, but in viewing the Chippendale | 
highboys all else is forgotten in our admiration of their 
beauty. 

But in art no one thing stands without relation to 
other things. In considering the height of furniture 
there is a point we should not forget—that if all fur- 
niture were low it would indeed be difficult satis- 
factorily to furnish a room. Instead of the agreeable 
variety conferred by pieces high and low, we should 
have a rather low line about the four walls with large 
unbroken spaces above, and if the ceiling were lofty 
this would be intolerable. Better far that the upper 
portions of highboys, double-chests, secretary-book- 
cases and cupboards should go unoccupied than that 
we should be reduced to such a uniformity. Hangings, 
pictures, and the like prove a present aid in the filling 


60 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


of blank spaces, but such resources have their limit of 
employment. 

A few chests-of-drawers were made here in Georgian 
years, and in Plate 12 B we have a thoroughly sensible 
piece of furniture. It contains five graduated drawers 
(the upper being divided into three) and all are con- 
venient of access. Its bracket feet raise it sufficiently 
from the floor, yet the total height is not too great. 
These bracket feet were common in England, but in- 
frequent here before the Chippendale years except 
in architect’s furniture. 

This chest-of-drawers and the Bible-box on the 
dressing-table in Plate 6 A were wedding-furniture of 
Sarah Smedley in 1737. They descended to a Sarah 
in each of several generations before their purchase 
by the present owner. It will be noted that though 
the present handles of the chest are of early style if 
was originally furnished with knobs. 

The highboy illustrated in Plate 12 A is of the middle 
period. The earliest examples were of the same general 
form but without the sunburst ornament. Pendants 
persisted from the William and Mary period. The 
present piece is unusual in having a different decora- 
tion on the upper central drawer; for the sunburst was 
generally repeated. The small knee-caps are of metal 
and the workmanship is excellent. 

About 1725 the scroll or bonnet-top appeared as a 
result of the architectural influence dominating English 
wall-furniture from approximately 1720 to 1750. 
Whether architects designed furniture made by cabinet- 
makers, or whether the craftsmen adopted architectural 
features is not known, but architecture became rampant 
in the product of the time. The scroll-top was copied 
from door-heads, and the pilaster was widely employed. 

Both these features are seen in the highboy appear- 


QUEEN ANNE—EARLY GEORGIAN 61 


ing in Plate 3. Though of the later, more elaborate 
type it will be noted that the pendants to the apron 
still persist. The making of flat-top highboys did not 
cease with the introduction of the scroll-top but per- 
sisted through the period. 

Lowboys or dressing-tables matched the highboys 
they were to accompany and so had aprons of various 
designs, frequently, too, preserving the pendants. 

The corner-closets shown in Plate 14 are archi- 
tectural throughout. In figure B we again see the 
scroll-top with finials and a modification of the pilaster. 


BEDSTEADS 


An excellent bedstead of the Georgian years, with 
cabriole leg and plain knee, appears in the Concord 
interior, Plate 3, and another in Plate 46. 

Earlier in the century they were quite plain, as 
they were to be covered by drapery. The posts were 
usually rather thin and spike-like, but the lower ones 
were sometimes fluted or shaped. The headboards 
were low and very simple. The feet were occasionally 
blocked. 

Later than this—probably 1760—were the hand- 
some bedsteads such as that illustrated in Plate 45, 
with boldly and carefully executed acanthus-carved 
knees. A central volute extends upward over the base 
of the post. As draperies were still in vogue, the upper 
posts and headboard remain plain. ‘This type of leg 
would commonly be termed “Chippendale,” but it 
was frequent in England before that master-craftsman 
entered business and so should properly be termed of 
pre-Chippendale style. 


THE WOODS EMPLOYED 


About 1710—ten years earlier than in England— 
mahogany came into use: but the native pine, maple, 


a eee prs, 


their own. ay 


walnut, cherry, and occasionally other 
were general. With such simple furniture 


the native woods were entirely appropriate. ee 
next period both mahogany and ornament came 


HANDLES 


As appropriate to the furniture, the handles 
of simple types—of unobtrusive willow-pattern, pl 
bails, and, occasionally, knobs. Drop-ring han 
appear on the cupboard in Plate 14 A. Beate B Be 1S 
H hinges so familiar in architectural work. - 


THE CHIPPENDALE STYLE 


T IS with the Chippendale style that we reach the 
first of the really great periods in English, and con- 
sequently in American, cabinet-making. Desirable in 
many respects as the earlier modes may have been, we 
now for the first time find furniture comparable to the 
best Continental work, that of the fine French and 
Italian periods “of almost superhuman beauty.” 

The phraseology above used should be noted: we 
cannot accurately say with Chippendale, but are com- 
pelled to use the words “with the Chippendale style.” 
For from now on the story of the styles is particularly 
full of difficulties and uncertainties and we can only 
characterise the mobiliary product of the last half of 
the eighteenth century as belonging to the Chippendale, 
Hepplewhite, or Sheraton Styles or schools. Writers 
may and do continually and conversationally say that 
Chippendale, or another, did certain things, but it 
must unfailingly be understood that it is only sometimes 
that we can with certainty refer designs or work to 
individuals or firms. 

Many reasons for this will make themselves evident 
as we proceed but it may at once be said that this is 
largely because detailed information is so exceedingly 
meagre—we do not even yet know, for example, when 
George Hepplewhite went into business. In the present 
age of weighty biographies of numerous illustrious 
nonentities this may now seem strange, but no one 
then saw fit to chronicle the lives and achievements of 
even the greatest in English furniture design. Chippen- 
dale was the first in that country to lift cabinet-making 


from the level of mere tradesmanship to the rank of 
63 


64. AMERICAN FURNITURE 


high craftsmanship, but this is in our eyes rather than 
in those of his contemporaries. True, he was the fash- 
ionable cabinet-maker of London and actually domi- 
nated its furniture styles for well-nigh fifteen years, 
but the spirit of the times had not yet risen to the 
appreciation of such art and the importance of record- 
ing the details of his life and work. Then he was Still 
but a tradesman! 

Furthermore, movements in art, as in invention, 
are always “in the air.” None of these men, Chippen- 
dale, or Shearer, Hepplewhite or Sheraton, stood alone: 
there were also others, endowed with less genius but 
often with much ability, who at the same time were 
producing excellent results; sometimes because they 
were working in the same direction and under the same 
decorative impulse, sometimes as followers of these 
principal exponents of the various modes. For all of 
these men issued books of design, and it was open to 
any cabinet-maker in Leeds, Liverpool, or York, or in 
Salem, New York, or Philadelphia to produce furniture 
either exactly or approximately following the designs 
illustrated. 

We should naturally conclude that these volumes 
would be an embodiment of the respective styles, but 
we shall presently see, and but too clearly for our 
comfort, how far this is from being the case. Had the 
custom of signing and dating even only important 
pieces prevailed, as it did to a large extent in France, 
the student of furniture would have been spared a 
world of investigation and conjecture. 


THE STYLE IN ENGLAND 


{n order to have any understanding of Chippendale 
furniture in America we must, naturally, know some- 
thing of it in the country of its origin. 


CHIPPENDALE 6s 


The long-current traditions regarding Chippendale 
himself, which led to so many errors regarding the 
early style, have at last been relegated to the limbo 
of fable by positive public records.* 

Thomas Chippendale was baptised at Otley, York- 
shire, on June 5, 1718. As baptisms in the Church of 
England are not delayed, he was probably born the 
same year. His father was a joiner of that town by 
the name of John, and not also Thomas as was formerly 
believed. Mr. Oliver Brackett, of the Victoria and 
Albert Museum, who has gathered together various 
particulars, says that it is reported by John Chippen- 
dale of Newcastle-on-Tyne that Chippendale attracted 
by. his unusual ability the notice of the ancestors of 
the Earl of Harewood through whose assistance he 
was enabled to start in business in London, and re- 
marks that this was probably in placing him in some 
well-known cabinet-shop there. I may add that 
Harewood House was one of the large establishments for | 
which, from 1771-75 Chippendale executed important 
furniture in his alliance with Robert Adam. 

On May 19, 1748 he married Catherine Redshaw 
and the same year finds him in business for himself— 
Mr. Ceszinsky tells me that this is the first year in 
which his name appears in the London Directory. He 
was then thirty years of age and was alone—his father 
did not establish the business, as was formerly be- 
lieved, nor was he ever connected with it. 

In 1755 Thomas Chippendale was occupying three 
houses in St. Martin’s Lane, where a fire broke out 
destroying the chests of twenty-two workmen. In 
1754 he had published the first edition of “The Gentle- 
man and Cabinet Maker’s Director” and was now 

* See foot of page 95. 


66 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


prosperous, working for the nobility and gentry, and 
his fame was established. 

Simply by the aid of these dates we are now able 
to clear up previous misapprehensions. 

The piece of furniture with which even those who 
know practically nothing of the subject are familiar is 
the “Chippendale” chair—and it was developed in 
London between 1735 and 1740, that is to say eight 
years at least before Chippendale began business in 
1748. 

Between 1735 and 1740 in England began the 
revolt from those long years of dominance of the Dutch 
influence in favour of that of France. This was first 
seen simply in the refinement of form and in the 
evolving of certain details from the earlier Queen 
Anne-Early Georgian mode. Referring to the Ameri- 
can chairs, showing this development, in Plate 15 A 
and B, we shall see that the hooped top-rail has now 
given way to the cupid’s bow; that the back-splat, while 
retaining the vase shape, is now composed of inter- 
laced strap-work. These two features are particularly 
characteristic of what is commonly called the Chippen- 
dale chair. Now that dates tell us that they could 
not have originated with him, but with unknown 
predecessors, the question arises as to whether we 
shall continue the nomenclature. With due recogni- 
tion of facts there is no reason why we should not do 
so. Not only is it more convenient, but it is to be 
remembered that he adopted the mode and continued 
it during the whole course of his career: it was he 
who, in colloquial phrase, put this type of chair “on 
the map.” 

Personally I do not feel at all sure that some of 
the finest characteristics of “pre-Chippendale”’ fur- 
niture do not actually belong to him. Disregarding 


CHIPPENDALE 67 


the possibility of our some day learning that he entered 
business at a somewhat earlier date, we do not know 
what he may have produced while working for others 
—many men do unusual work for which the firm 
employing them naturally and rightly receives the 
credit. Certainly no one gains the phenomenal ability 
of a Chippendale only on the eve of entering business 
upon his own account, and it must be remembered 
that within six or seven years thereafter he had become 
the most famous cabinet-maker in the kingdom. Such 
ability must have made itself manifest somewhere by 
the time he was about twenty-four years of age, that 
is to say about 1742. Let us therefore work backward 
for a moment and see what we discern. It is in certain 
chairs of just about that date that we find a greater 
elaboration of beautiful carving and a sense of style, 
of distinction, dominating the whole piece. It was 
then that the French dolphin-foot and the French 
quatre-foil lattice (seen in Plate 15 C) appeared, and 
we know his tendencies, throughout his career, in 

favour of the mobiliary forms of France. And although 
~ acanthus-carving of the knee had sporadically occurred 
long before, after 1745 it becomes the usual ornament. 
Were these features due to Thomas Chippendale? It 
is an amiable theory: we do not know. 


THE “DIRECTOR” 


Chippendale’s “Director”? was first published in 
1754, with a Preface dated 23d March of that year. 
A second edition with no change beyond the resetting 
of the title-page appeared in 1759; a third, with numer- 
ous additions and some omissions was published in 
1762, this last edition being first issued in parts. 

The plates of even the first edition were somewhat 
worn, indicating the probability of separate impressions 


68 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


having been pulled from them for use with patrons 
and in the workroom. As in the Preface to this first 
edition he refers to certain animadversions made 
against his designs, they must have been accessible to 
criticism before publication in book-form. 

Naturally, this volume is the best guide that we 
possess to the various Chippendale phases and without 
it we would be lost indeed, but it is an exceedingly 
uncertain guide. To express it concisely, the “ Director”’ 
was a glorified trade-catalogue showing the furniture 
that Chippendale was ready to make and hoped to 
make for patrons that he already had and that he 
hoped to get. It should not injure him in American 
estimation to know that he was decidedly efficient and 
a “go-getter.” 

He does not show a ball-and-claw foot in the whole 
volume: the styles illustrated were new styles. Possibly 
he may have made pieces from some of the designs 
anterior to their issue in book-form, but they must 
have been few, for many designs need rationalising, 
and this was done in the actual construction of furniture 
of corresponding design. The volume was experi- 
mental and if we “check up”’ existing English Chippen- 
dale furniture by this book we shall find that some 
pieces closely resemble illustrations there shown, that 
others do not, and that many designs there appearing 
were not made up at all. 

The “Director” illustrated Chippendale’s Gothic 
and Chinese styles, re-introduced the straight leg, and 
was a very blast of the Rococo. As we shall see, the 
latter is of special importance to us because of its 
extensive employment by the foremost makers in 
America. 

Our knowledge will be advanced by considering 
certain misapprehensions regarding Chippendale’s 


CHIPPENDALE 69 


Rococo furniture. The first is that it came late in his 
career, whereas it is a foremost characteristic of the 
very first edition of the ‘ Director,” published but six 
years after he began business. The second is the 
derogatory or apologetic attitude too often taken 
toward that ornamental phase of his work. 

This furniture was made for palatial establishments 
and was extremely costly even in the days of its pro- 
duction: it was not intended for the average abode. 
If Americans in general were more familiar with the 
whole field of European furniture throughout the 
centuries of its design* they would be more appreci- 
ative of the wonderful work accomplished by the 
human brain and hand. Chippendale’s ribband-back 
chairs and French commodes are among the most 
glorious productions of the cabinet-making art. They 
are wonders of design and marvels of carving: Gibbon’s 
work was in soft lime wood: Chippendale’s in hard and 
tough mahogany. See Plates 29 B and 38. He was by 
no means alone in presenting Rococo design, but he 
was the only one we know who used the style as if he 
had been born to it. 

At first sight it is also puzzling to note what is so 
well expressed in the phrase “how non-Chippendalian 
some signed Chippendale pieces can be.’ (The word 
should be documented, as Chippendale did not sign 
his work.) This is the furniture produced when, in 
alliance with Robert Adam, Chippendale worked from 
1766 onward at Nostell Priory, Harewood House, and 
other “great”? houses. Though constructed by and 
billed by Thomas Chippendale and (beginning with 
1771) Chippendale, Haig & Co., it was made after 
designs by Adam and therefore cannot properly be con- 


* See “The Praétical Book of Learning Decoration and Furniture” with 180 
illustrations. 


70 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


sidered Chippendale furniture. It enhances our ap- 
preciation of his ability to realise that he could with 
the greatest facility and success so depart from his own 
metier and follow the classical mode of Adam, then and 
in the Garrick furniture. But Chippendale was always 
at heart a Romanticist and never a Classicist: although 
finally that Classicism triumphed and fashion steadily 
moved away from his own prepossessions, Chippendale 
proved himself unregenerate and would not yield in 
the pursuit of his own ideals. The style of his very 
last days (he died in 1779) was his “French manner,” 
using the typical scroll foot of Louis XV for his chairs 
and building commodes with metal mounts in the style 
of the ébeniSes of that reign. 

Chippendale did his very finest work between the 
years 1750 and 1760 when he was constructing fur- 
niture principally for the nobility and gentry. A 
newer aristocracy of wealth had also grown up, emulat- 
ing the older class as closely as might be in manner of 
living, and Chippendale found among these many 
customers. Either he or his followers also made much 
simple but excellent furniture for the householder of 
moderate means. He never ceased the production of 
fine pieces, but as his business grew he undoubtedly 
did more commercial work, and, later, when he was 
losing his more important connexion he would have 
been obliged to depend to a greater degree upon the 
less notable clientéle and his work with Adam. 

It is doubtful however if a defection occurred quite 
sO soon Or Was quite as serious as is sometimes thought. 
Let us fall back upon reliable dates. Robert Adam 
returned from his studies on the Continent in 1757 
and had opened his architect’s office by February 1758. 
His series of drawings for furniture and mantels, at 
Soane, were from about 1762 to 1790, the early ones 


CHIPPENDALE 71 


being very tentative. As Adam found that no existing 
English furniture would properly accompany his Classic 
interiors, he began to design it for himself. He was in 
no sense a cabinet-maker and these designs often re- 
quired rationalising for actual production. Accounts 
rendered prove that some of the furniture was made by 
Chippendale: the mutual influence between Adam and 
Hepplewhite, evident in furniture itself, shows that at 
a later time (not before 1775) some was made by 
Hepplewhite: while others, too, were doubtless em- 
ployed. Adam’s work was not generally available, for 
he designed for his own clientéle; but we know that 
gradually he was imitated by the lesser craftsmen of 
his time. His influence was pre€minently upon archi- 
» tecture, and it is doubtful if before 1765 enough fur- 
niture had actually been constructed to emphasise the 
change in this branch and materially to affect Chippen- 
dale. By that date his dominance and prestige might 
have weakened in the estimation of those alert to 
changes of impulse in the world of art, but with general 
society his vogue was firmly welded and it is question- 
able how much his reputation or his business suffered 
for several years still to come. 

But after about 1770 “the Adam character per- 
meated the whole trade.”’ Nevertheless during Chip- 
pendale’s last years he was still making handsome 
furniture—especially that in the “French manner” 
previously referred to. 

In addition to the wonderful late commodes with 
metal mounts Mr. Ceszinsky illustrates among others 
a superb chair of 1770-75 with elaborate dolphin feet, 
in which the entire woodwork is covered with an ap~ 
propriate pattern of scales. He tells us that this was 
originally one of a set of about twenty-four chairs 
and a settee which were arranged in the long corridors 


72 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


at Ditton Park, the home of Lord Montagu of Beaulieu 
at Thames Ditton. From this and further known 
examples it would appear that Chippendale had not 
entirely lost his aristocratic clientéle and their im- 
portant commissions. 

He died in 1779 and was succeeded by his son— 
another Thomas. It was at this time that the Hepple- 
white school became powerful, succeeded by that of 
Sheraton about 1790. Not a great deal is known of 
the work of the son but the Chippendale firm went 
out of existence in the bankruptcy court in 1805. 


AMERICAN CHIPPENDALE FURNITURE 


During the various periods taken as a whole we 
shall find that fine cabinet-making was well distributed 
through the northern portion of our country, but 
during the Chippendale régime Philadelphia and its 
neighbourhood is universally acknowledged to be 
supreme. 

The reason is obvious. At this time Philadelphia 
was the most important city in the Colonies—in popu- 
lation, wealth, and cultivation of taste. Its affiliations, 
social and commercial, were close both with the planters 
of Virginia and with Charleston, then, as now, the most 
exclusive society in our land. In this respec Phila- 
delphia itself is not unfamed. An aristocracy had — 
grown up of cultivated people closely connected by 
marriage between prominent families and sustained by 
abundant means. The town was famous for its lawyers, 
physicians, and scientists. Foreign travel and a lavish 
home-life were but customary; yet this life was un- 
pretentious and very solid. Philadelphia demanded 
the best and, having the money to pay for it, it, as 
usual, secured what it wished. Prominent among its 
demands were fine household goods. It is therefore a 


CHIPPENDALE 73 


far cry from simple, naive work to the highly developed 
furniture that we are now to consider. 

As the Philadelphia craftsmen did not adopt the 
Chippendale style till about 1760, whereas Chippendale 
had entered business in 1748 and had published his 
“Director” in 1754, naturally the whole field of his 
design, save his latest “French manner,” was open to 
their choice. We shall soon see that the making of this 
furniture in the Philadelphia neighbourhood did not 
entirely cease for thirty years, and as any cabinet- 
maker might select a comparatively late model and 
five or fifteen years later work from an earlier one, it 
is not worth while to attempt to fix from their Style 
the dates of American pieces. It is, however, essential 
to know which of the several Chippendale phases any 
piece may follow, and this will be indicated as the 
various illustrations are taken up. 

Mahogany was of course the chosen wood for the 
rendering of this style; for no other material would: 
have so well answered the demands made upon it for 
the durability of the elaborate carving of its fine 
pieces. Walnut was, however, employed to some con- 
siderable extent, and occasionally maple, in the simpler 
articles of furniture. 

CHAIRS 


The earliest phase in England was the development 
from the Decorated Queen Anne style—the pre- 
Chippendale type later adopted by him (Plate 15 A 
and B.) 

It has already been mentioned that between the 
years 1730 and 1740, first the interlaced splat and then 
the cupid’s-bow back were introduced, and Plate 11 
shows a transition chair preserving Queen Anne 
features but introducing this cupid’s-bow back-rail. 
Though its effects had become discernible earlier, it 


74 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


was in this decade also that, as has been mentioned, 
French fashion became dominant in England and so 
remained for many years, French becoming even the 
fashionable language among the aristocracy. That 
Gallic ornament the cabochon, surrounded by the 
acanthus leaf, was then also introduced and became 
the favourite adornment of the knees of furniture. 
Variations of this are seen in the handsome sofa used 
by Washington and preserved in Independence Hall, 
see Plate 23, and the table 25 A. Between 1745 and 
1750 the cabochon was more commonly abandoned, 
the acanthus spreading over the whole knee as in most 
examples here. This change may have been due to 
Chippendale, though he employed the cabochon oc- 
casionally throughout the course of his career, and 
appropriately and effectively revived it in his late 
“French manner.” During this developing period of 
say 1730-45 the Queen Anne club foot, the claw-and- 
ball, and the paw-foot were all in use. | 

Rather earlier than the interlaced splat even was 
that with perpendicular piercings. It appeared in 
England as early as 1725-30. The slightly hollowed 
top rail seen in the two chairs by the fireplace in the 
Captain Cook room, Plate 130, was used in London 
about 1750-60. 

In the central chair, from the Charles Wharton 
House, in Plate 136 will be noticed a carved rim or 
beading at the edge of the seat-rail and down the inside 
of the knees. This is a survival from the Queen Anne 
Style. It occurs also in a labelled chair by James 
Gillingham, found not many years ago, and in the 
labelled lowboy by Thomas Tufft (Plate 44 B) later 
to be mentioned. 

Two backs very closely resembling each other are 
those in Plate 16. With the last of these we reach the 


PICA LE ars 


A. and B. CHIPPENDALE CHAIRS OF QUEEN ANNE DERIVATION TYPE 
By Courtesy of Charles Woolsey Lyon, Inc., New York City 


C. CHAIR WITH FRENCH LATTICE BACK 


PLATE 16 


YIOX MAN ‘duqT ‘vod Aasjooay safseyD jo Asaqinoy Ag 
SYHHOLAULS GNV SOUT LHOIVULS HLIM YIVHD ‘a 


uinasnyy viuvajAsuuag 01 ‘*bsq ‘psosyey “YY UYyof Aq pauroT 
ANAVA ANOHLNV TVYXNYS AG GHNMO ATYAWUOA YIVHD “V 


_meesnseannemneneagingcappncnmmnintcnn naman 


PLATE 17 


i 
i 


Photograph by Mary H. Northend 
PHILADELPHIA CHAIR WITH DOUBLE-ARCHED SEAT-RAIL 
By Courtesy of Dudley L. Pickman, Esq., Boston and Beverly, Mass. 


PLATE 18 


Photograph by Whitenack 


CHAIR WITH GOTHIC TENDENCIES IN: BACK 
One of the ‘‘Six Sample Chairs’ 
By Courtesy of Howard Reifsnyder, Esq. 


Photograph by Whitenack 


CHAIR WITH GOTHIC BACK 
One of the ‘‘Six Sample Chairs’’ 
By Courtesy of Howard Reifsnyder, Esq. 


PEATEs 


ELABORATE WING CHAIR AND DETAILS 
One of the ‘‘six sample chairs’’ 


By Courtesy of Howard Reifsnyder, Esq. 
Photograph by Dillon 


EN socom 


Photograph by Whitenack 


UPHOLSTERED ARM CHAIR WITH CARVED FRET ORNAMENT 
By Courtesy of Howard Reifsnyder, Esq. 


PLA THe e2 


B. LADDER-BACK ARM AND SIDE CHAIR 


All by Courtesy of Charles Woolsey Lyon, Inc., New York 


CHIPPENDALE 75 


Straight leg reintroduced into the furniture world by 
Chippendale in the first edition of his “Director.” It 
is quite possible that he may have actually made 
chairs embodying this feature a year or so earlier and 
that others may have employed it, but this is its first 
appearance in print and it is universally conceded that 
to him belongs the credit. He used it and the cabriole 
leg indiscriminately even with his handsomest backs. 


Before taking up Chippendale’s later styles it will 
be well to consider certain points regarding our Amer- 
ican workmanship, as these are in themselves illum- 
inating. 

So fully did the Philadelphia craftsmen capture the 
Chippendale spirit and so remarkable was their work- 
manship that it is admittedly difficult positively to say 
whether certain chairs are of English or of American 
make. The expert can usually determine, and he is 
aided by the knowledge of the following details often but 
not invariably to be found in our own workmanship: 

Very occasionally in England during the Queen 
Anne period back legs were rounded, but if existent, this 
feature is most uncommon there in the Chippendale 
Style: it is very frequent in Philadelphia chairs and will 
be seen in Plates 15 B, 16 A, and other examples. 

In England the seat-rails were almost invariably 
narrow: very occasionally indeed after the Queen Anne 
régime are they cut out at the bottom into a flat arch, 
and then this arch is slight. In America the seat-rails 
were wider, and the arch, more deeply cut, was frequent. 
See Plates 15 and 16 A. 

The tenoning of the side-rails of the seat through 
the back-supports, or stiles, for the gaining of greater 
Strength, was commonly practised here, and in such 
cases the ends of the tenons can be discerned at the 


76 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


back. For the same reason these seat-rails were often 
made heavier here than in England. 

In America the shell, so extensively used as an 
ornament in Queen Anne days, persists into the Chip- 
pendale period and will be seen in the illustrations 
again and again. In England it went quite definitely 
out of use about 1745 and only occurs sporadically. I 
remember no English Chippendale chair in which it 
appears as the sole ornament in the centre of an other- 
wise plain seat-rail. And such a tremendous example 
as that in the chair to the right of the fireplace in the 
Philadelphia Room, Frontispiece, is certainly most un- 
usual here, being reminiscent of the huge ornaments so 
frequent in the so-called “Irish” Chippendale furniture 
made in the West of England. The claw-and-ball foot 
in which the ball is not rounded but is flat at the bottom 
is characteristic of the Philadelphia group and will be 
seen in many examples here. 

There are differences in proportion which are rather 
subtle but which will be apprehended by the com- | 
parison of a number of examples. As Dr. Woodhouse 
expresses it: “American chairs tend to be smaller in 
the seat than English chairs, especially narrower at 
the rear of the seat. American chairs, however, have 
higher backs than contemporary English pieces.” 

Chippendale and his followers gave quite various 
finishes to the ends of his cupid’s-bow backs and to 
some extent this was followed here. One of the best 
known of them is that appearing in Plate 15 C, but in 
Philadelphia chairs the middle rib frequently projects 
beyond the other two, as in the same plate figs. A and 
B. A friend humourously refers to this protuberance 
as “the Philadelphia peanut.” 

If none of these particular details occurred one 
would not be safe in deciding that a chair was not. 


CHIPPENDALE 77 


American, for several of the Philadelphia group of 
craftsmen during this period came from London and 
would be likely closely to follow English shop-tradi- 
tions. Furthermore, considerable furniture was im- 
ported—and particularly such smaller pieces as chairs 
and tables. If an American cabinet-maker were fol- 
lowing such an English piece as a model he would be 
quite likely to follow it exactly, and especially if the 
two were to be used together. We might therefore 
encounter a set of chairs of which some were imported 
and others of American make. 

If two of the above mentioned features occur in 
one chair it is almost surely of American origin. 


A chair regarding which there was formerly con- 
siderable difference of opinion is shown in Plate 15 C. 
The whole back is particularly graceful and its splat 
contains the French latticed quatre-foil ornament 
which may have been introduced by Chippendale. The 
entire back-design is very like these English examples 
and the chair was sometimes thought to be of English 
origin. It has however been inspected by several ex- 
perts who definitely pronounce it American. Its wide 
and solid deeply arched seat-rails would indicate this. 
The unsparing use of mahogany in the knees may per- 
haps also point in this direction. It is a very fine chair. 

It is still necessary to use the word “group” when 
writing of the Philadelphia cabinet-makers. Notwith- 
Standing the fruitful researches of the staff and associ- 
ates of the Pennsylvania Museum, they are as yet 
unable positively to name the maker or makers of the 
most notable furniture. In the natural enthusiasm 
of a few years ago over the discovery of William Savery, 
through a labelled piece, the magnificent highboys that 
we shall view were hastily ascribed to his hand, but six 


78 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


labelled pieces of his work have now been found and, 
while all are excellent, none show him to have been a 
maker of really notable furniture. Dr. Woodhouse 
in a cautious and well-reasoned article in Antiques for 
May, 1927 shows us that Benjamin Randolph may 
have been the cabinet-maker of the notable furniture 
and that Hercules Courtenay may have been the 
carver. Jefferson states that Randolph made the box- 
desk on which the Declaration of Independence was 
drafted. Courtenay describes himself in his advertise- 
ment in the Pennsylvania Chronicle, August 14, 1769, 
as “Carver and Gilder, from London.” He was 
married the previous year at “Old Swedes,” Phila- 
delphia. The names of a number of other Philadelphia 
craftsmen are known and we shall meet some of them 
as we proceed. The most remarkable pieces of Chip- 
pendale furniture were made between 1762 and the 
outbreak of the Revolution. Indications seem to 
point to a larger use here of the third edition of the 
“Director” (1762) than the first. The last edition 
contained many additional plates. 


THE GOTHIC, CHINESE, AND ROCOCO PHASES, WITH COMBINATIONS 


The Gothic tradition had been broken by the 
Renaissance, and in Chippendale’s time there was 
little understanding or appreciation of this great 
Style. Notwithstanding the cathedrals and churches 
before their very eyes, to say nothing of the even more 
glorious Gothic architecture of France, the “Gothic” 
of Batty Langley, Walpole, and others was but a 
travesty. Remembering, too, the unsuitability of this 
ecclesiastical style to modern domestic purposes, it is 
not surprising that this phase should be the least satis- 
factory of Chippendale’s work. He himself may have 
felt this, for it was not long persisted in, though he 


CHIPPENDALE 79 


continued to use suggestions of Gothic tracery in the 
splats of his chairs and with very happy results. Two 
examples of this use are seen in the American chairs 
in Plates 18 and 19. ‘There are few specimens of the 
American following of the more definitely Gothic 
Chippendale pieces—or as definite as he knew how to 
make them—and we are not much the poorer. 

The “Director” also illustrated the Chinese phase, 
and here one may speak in greater admiration. Chin- 
oiserte had been “in the air” all through Europe, from 
the days of Louis Quatorze: it was rampant in the 
decoration and furniture of his successor, and much 
of its spirit enters into the Rococo style itself. It was 
not to be expected that this oriental art, with all its 
subtlety, should closely be apprehended by Western 
minds and temperaments, and it is quite as well that 
an absolute transference was not attempted. Such 
an endeavour would but have resulted in a bastard 
product. The aim was not faithfully to zmztate Chinese _ 
art but to use it as suggestion and inspiration for the 
carrying out of a delightful fancy. Nothing could be 
more successful than some of the effects obtained in 
France, through the employment in this way of its 
lighter and grotesque phases. 

While Chippendale as an Englishman was less 
lighthanded in its employment this resulted in perhaps 
a greater bottom to his achievement: there was abundant 
fancy, while a considerable degree of dignity was often 
conserved. This furniture, with the aid of Chinese 
wall-paper and accessories, was intended for the con- 
stituting of interiors of a Chinese type and its success 
is evidenced by the persistence of this vogue to-day. 

But, furthermore, there are the very fine and digni- 
fied chairs and tables still called “Chinese Chippen- 
dale” but which employ so little of the oriental char- 


80 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


acter beyond the fascinating fret, the brackets, and 
the generally rectangular contour that it is better to 
term it Fretted Furniture. Two fine examples are 
illustrated here—Plate 22 A with the pierced or open 
fret and Plate 21 with fret applied. Indeed in the 
latter case it is carved ornament rather than fret. 
Such chairs as this may be employed in any room 
to which other Chippendale furniture would be 
appropriate. 

In the first edition of the “Director” Chippendale 
reserved Rococo ornament, as applied to chairs, mainly 
for his “ Ribband-backs”’ and the elaborate upholstered 
chairs he called French—not to be confused with those 
in his late “‘ French manner’”—though we find touches 
of the Rococo here and there in his other chair designs. 
Only simple patterns of the first style and none of the 
second were made here, but there are elaborate chairs 
of other character—those combining various tendencies. 
One scarcely knows whether most to admire Chippen- 
dale’s verve, virility, and variety of design or his 
astonishing ability in combining apparently incongru- 
ous elements. And in both respects the Philadelphia 
cabinet-makers sealed themselves of the tribe of Chip- 
pendale! Mr. Pickman’s fine example—Plate 17—is 
generally of the Queen Anne development type but 
refined, charmingly ornamented, and showing above 
the rolled-up French foot a definitely Rococo scroll. 
The double-arched seat-rail with central shell is most 
unusual in England. I know of but one English chair, 
in the hands of a London dealer, having a quite similar 
double arch with the shell at the centre, and it is not 
nearly so well designed. 

Two chairs owned by Mr. Reifsnyder—Plates 18 
and 19—have Gothic tendencies in their splats and 


CHIPPENDALE 81 


are generally of the Queen Anne development type 
but with French features introduced. 

One of these beautiful chairs—Plate 18—is not 
quite so Rococo as a glance would indicate—it is 
Rococo in spirit rather than in the letter. Free and 
flowing as is its ornament a closer examination shows 
it still to possess much of the character of the earlier 
acanthus-leaf decoration. The other chair—Plate 19 
—is full of definitely Rococo details. But more Gallic 
Still is the celebrated Cadwalader pier-table now in 
the Metropolitan Museum—Plate 24. Both of Mr. 
Reifsnyder’s chairs have the lovely rolled-up French 
foot used in England about 1745-50 (introduced by 
Chippendale?) and distinctly fashionable between 1760 
and 1770. Both have the rounded back leg but in 
neither do the side rails pierce through the Stiles. 

A tradition exists in Philadelphia of six sample 
chairs, all different and five of them elaborate, and 
this tradition is discussed by Dr. Woodhouse in the. 
article on Randolph previously referred to (Antiques 
for May, 1927). Plates 18 and 19 show two of those 
chairs, and Mr. Reifsnyder is the happy possessor of 
still a third—the magnificent wing-chair illustrated in 
Plate 20. Five of the six chairs have been purchased 
from the descendants of the stepson of Benjamin Ran- 
dolph and presumably they came from his shop. The 
other remains in the family of original ownership. 

Some of these six chairs possess special American 
characteristics and some do not; and, as it does not 
seem to have occurred to others, I would suggest here 
that there is no reason apparent why Randolph (or 
another) should not have possessed six splendid chairs, 
used as samples, some of which he himself made and 
some of which he imported. 

Of the six the most elaborate example is in the 


82 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


possession of Henry W. Erving, Esq., of Hartford, 4 


Connecticut, and it is illustrated in the article. It 
shows none of the American characteristics. After a 
close study not only of its design (for which in its 
various portions there are precedents in the first and 
third editions of the “Director” and in fine existing 
English chairs) but considering the perfection of ease 
and swing with which this design is handled I should 
have been inclined to say that it is an English chair and 
very probably from the establishment in St. Martin’s 
Lane. I understand, however, that it has been ex- 
amined by English experts and that they find certain 
differences in cabinet-work between it and their own 
practice. 

From these magnificent examples of craftsmanship 
we may turn to the simple but excellent ladder-backs 
(see Plate 22 B) with the invention of which type 
Chippendale is credited. [To the writer’s mind at 
least they are much superior as furniture to the best 
Windsors. And their lines agree with those of other 
pieces, as the spidery, canted lines of Windsors do not. 

The roundabout chair persists from the previous 
period, but now naturally possesses the Chippendale 
characteristics. The same is true of the big and com- 
fortable wing chair. | 

The stool at the foot of the bedstead in Plate 46 is 
a simple example of the following of Chippendale’s 
“French manner.’ Sometimes, as here, the knees 
remained entirely plain—a revival of the unornamented 
type of Queen Anne—and sometimes it was adorned 
with the cabochon, a Gallic derivation. In any case 
the rolled-up Louis XV foot with toe was used. 

Chippendale chairs were of course made elsewhere 
in America than in Philadelphia. The New England 
examples for the most part seem to be simple and some- 


CHIPPENDALE 83 


times stiff—the style as a whole was probably not 
congenial to its temperament and was not so well 
apprehended as in Philadelphia. It is quite possible 
that many of the finer Chippendale pieces found in 
New England were either brought from Philadelphia 
or were imported. But John Brinner, to give a New 
York instance quoted by Mr. Lockwood, advertises in 
1762 all sorts of current furniture including ‘Gothic 
and Chinese chairs.”” He was from London and had 
brought over “‘six Artificers, well-skilled in the above 
branches.” 
SETTEES AND SOFAS 

In addition to the multiple chair-back settees we 
find day-beds and window-seats following the various 
Chippendale phases and also upholstered sofas. 

That appearing in Plate 23 A was used in the 
Executive mansion on High Street during the years 
that Washington lived in Philadelphia as President of 
the United States. On his return to Mt. Vernon it was 
sold to Robert Morris and is now in Independence Hall, 
having been presented by the Union League. It is a 
fine example with beautifully designed knee and the 
paw-foot. The camel-back is the usual pre-Chippendale 
and Chippendale style, but the arms here spread 
rather more than usual. The most frequent form of 
rolled arm is that seen in the next example on the 
same plate. This has the fretted straight leg with 
Stretchers; but cabriole legs were also used with the 
same construction of arms and back. 

Another type of sofa is a derivation from the 
Louis XV style and is naturally very French in general 
appearance. 

TABLES 

The trades of chair-maker and cabinet-maker, 

previously separate, were united by Chippendale, who 


84 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


not only made all kinds of furniture but in his alliance 
with Adam supplied draperies and other articles of 
interior-decoration as well. We naturally expect, 
therefore, that other legged furniture would closely 
agree with the various types of chair-legs. Further- 
more, as the aprons of tables and legged cabinet-pieces 
occupy a position similar to the seat-rails of chairs, 
these follow the same treatment; being plain, or with 
gadroon moulding, or with carved ornament. It is 
only necessary then to refer to the various tables in use. 

The American dining-tables of this period seem 
simply to have continued the types of the previous 
era, being of drop-leaf form like the example on the 
left wall of Plate 130 or composed of a central table 
with two separate end-tables, when it was necessary 
to seat a larger number of persons. 

A handsome fier-table is shown in the like position 
in the Philadelphia Room, frontispiece; but the 
finest example known is that from the Cadwalader 
house, Philadelphia, and now in the Metropolitan 
Museum (Plate 24). Because of the Gallic freedom 
shown in the Rococo ornament of this table and some 
other fine pieces it has been suggested that their carver 
was of French blood or training, but a glance at but 
one detail of this table shows Chippendale as its in- 
spiration: whereas in the work of the ébenistes of Louis 
XV the shoe is either absent or of modest dimensions, 
Chippendale made of it a feature—and it is repeated 
here. The swing and lightness evident in this piece. 
are probably due to the freedom of the American in- 
terpretation of the style. Certain it is that some one 
of our craftsmen had a love for the human face and 
figure, for one or the other is introduced in several pieces 
of furniture of this school. These pier-tables frequently 
had marble tops, as in the illustrated instances. 


PELE S73 


m3 


Photograph by Philip B. Wallace 


A. WASHINGTON SOFA IN INDEPENDENCE HALL 


B. TYPICAL ROLL-ARM SOFA, WITH STRETCHERS. FRETTED LEGS 
By Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum, New York City 


AW) YOK MAN ‘unasnyy uvajodomayy ayi jo Asaaimoy Ag 
VIHdTdGV1IHd “ASQOH WAVIVMGVD WOW AIAVL-Ydld ODODOY ATVGNAddIHD 


1b Nein ox 


LARA RE Meee 


A. CARD-TABLE OF PRE-CHIPPENDALE DESIGN 
By Courtesy of Charles Woolsey Lyon, Inc. 


B. PIE-CRUST, TRIPOD TEA-TABLE 
By Courtesy of the Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia 


PEATE" 26 


= Fe, fe Jad be 


Le vO Mig Seek Ft 
ak Lo Ve M NM “ 
hoe BS aes oN 


A x 4 


CARD-TABLE WITH FRENCH LATTICE CORNERS 
A wonderful example of Philadelphia carving 


Loaned by Mr. and Mrs. Cornelius Stevenson to the Pennsylvania Museum 


Pisil Bo27 


Photograph by Whitenack 
A. GALLERIED TABLE WITH ORNAMENTAL, RAISED STRETCHER AND BRACKETS 


Photograph by Dillon 
B. SMALL TABLE WITH STRAIGHT LEGS AND BRACKETS 


Both by Courtesy of Howard Reifsnyder, Esq. 


PLATE 28 


Photograph by Dillon 


A. BLOCK-FRONT DRESSING-TABLE MADE OUTSIDE OF RHODE ISLAND 
By Courtesy of Howard Reifsnyder, Esq. 


B. DESK BELIEVED TO BE BY JOHN GODDARD, NEWPORT, R. I. 
By Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum, New York City 


PLATE 29 


A. AN EARLY DUTCH-COLONIAL DESK IN CEYLON 
A Prototype of the American Block-front 
By Courtesy of The Connoisseur, London 


B. RIBBAND-BACK CHAIR AND FIRE-SCREENS 
From Chippendale’s ‘‘Director,’’ 1754 


CHIPPENDALE BOOK-CASE WITH GOTHIC TRACERY 


Property of the Author 


CHIPPENDALE 85 


Sideboards were not made or used during the 
Chippendale period, long side-tables of appropriately 
formal character fulfilling this function in England. 
Probably very few handsome examples were made in 
this country, their place being taken by sufficiently 
large tables of the type of that in Plate 27 B or with 
cabriole legs. 

Tea-drinking had long been the rage in London 
and the cargo of tea spilled into Boston harbour before 
the Revolution is but one indication of the extent to 
which the custom attained here. The tripod-table 
was a favourite for this function, but any other small 
table, such as that with gallery-top and raised stretcher 
(Plate 27 A), or the Pembroke might be employed. | 

The tripod was made in infinite variety, most of 
them having the pie-crust (raised) edge as in the fine 
table illustrated in Plate 25 B. This edge might be 
plain, elaborately carved, or galleried. Another ex- 
ample with the top tilted will be seen in Plate 138. 
The tops frequently were also made to turn. 

The Pembrokes were small two-lidded tables of 
various forms. A transition piece appears in Plate 72 
but they were often of slenderer build with plain or 
clustered legs and sometimes with saltire, or crossed, 
Stretchers. ‘They were also called “‘book-tables,”’ but 
of them Sheraton rather quaintly says: “The use of 
the piece is for a gentleman or lady to breakfast on. 
The style of finishing these tables is very neat, some- 
times bordering upon elegance.” Chippendale, too, 
calls them breakfast tables. Doubtless they were often 
employed as what we now call “occasional’’ tables 
—for any purpose to which at the moment they might 
be convenient. 

We do not need the numerous references to “loo” 
and other games of chance to inform us how wide- 


86 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


spread was card-playing here: the number of card- 
tables and the care lavished upon them are sufficient 
evidence. Even staid New England (and especially 
in the next period) is famous for the workmanship of 
its many examples. These card-tables naturally appear 
in the several Chippendale styles and, being so charm- 
ing and useful, three examples are illustrated here. 
That in Plate 25 A—a pre-Chippendale design—has 
the claw-and-ball foot and one of the varieties of the 
cabochon knee: a splayed gadroon moulding ornaments 
the skirt. Plate 26 is one of the finest examples in the 
country and is shown by special permission of the 
owners. It is a wonderful specimen of Philadelphia 
design, workmanship, and clean-cut carving. In these 
tables the shallow circular depressions were provided 
for the holding of candlesticks, while the deeper oval 
hollows were for counters or money. The double lids 
not only open but swing. Plate 27 B shows a very 
attractive example with grooved straight legs, brackets, 
and bead-and-reel moulding. It will be noted that 
the handles in this and the first mentioned example 
are identical. 

The various ingenious treatments of the insides of 
legs in this period are well worth observation. In the 
table Plate 27 B they are rounded; in the one above 
it they are chamfered in two places, above and below 
the stretcher: in the chair shown in Plate 21 they 
remain square: while in Plate 22 A the legs are L- 
shaped so as to allow the pierced fret. 


BOOK-CASES, DESKS, AND SECRETARIES 


I cannot but feel that the so often mentioned 
paucity of books in America is somewhat exaggerated. 
In 1638 Cambridge had its printing-press—it is said 
before Glasgow, Manchester, and Liverpool in Great 


ae . : Se oe sey 
Se er Mae ae eye err ee 


: 


CHIPPENDALE 87 


Britain itself. And one has but to look through the 
long lists of Americana in rare-book catalogues to 
realise the number of volumes published here, to say 
nothing of the multitude that were imported. It 
would be unfair to refer to the eminent men who, we 
know, possessed extensive libraries. Doubtless the 
average family owned few books as compared with that 
of to-day, where we find a book-case or two in almost 
every home—though perhaps the less attention we 
call to the quality of their contents the more discreet 
we shall be. But the Chippendale period produced 
not only that extremely convenient piece of furniture 
the secretary-bookcase but many such book-cases as 
the type illustrated in Plate 30. Here again, however, 
fairness compels me to own that the top of the secre- 
tary-bookcase might be, and frequently was, used for 
chinaware. 

The book-case illustrated (Plate 30) has Gothic 
arched tracery, chamfered, fluted corners, and ogee: 
bracket feet. 

A taller, still finer, example also owned by the writer 
cannot be photographed because of its situation in a 
narrow hall. It has a rectangular and diagonal tracery, 
two lower drawers, dentil moulding at the top, and 
splayed gadroon at the bottom, and block feet. The 
very large “‘break-front’’ library book-cases were 
common in England, but few were constructed in this 
country. 

Desks were made in the current Chippendale styles, 
with claw-and-ball, straight bracket, and ogee bracket 
feet. But the specimens illustrated in Plate 28 A and B 
bring us to the block-front, which is universally con- 
sidered not only an American but more particularly 
a New England development. 

Realising, however, that no such special type is an 


88 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


out-and-out invention, but is always due to suggestion 
from some anterior source, I set myself, several years 
ago, to the finding of this suggestion. I have found 
more than that. The plate opposite—2z9 A— illustrates 
an early Dutch Colonial writing-cabinet in Ceylon. 
If this feature existed in that then Dutch colony (and 
possibly originated there) it existed in Holland also. 
Many early Puritans came direct from Holland or 
from Holland by way of England: a knowledge of the 
type or even the existence of such a piece in New 
England is entirely possible. And this type was made 
in New England and nowhere else. 

Considering this Dutch writing-cabinet it will be 
seen that it has a veritable double block, and that if 
the intricately curved front were simply straightened 
out we should have a very close approximation to our 
American block-front. Of course our craftsmen de- 
veloped the form into such charming pieces as those 
seen in Plates 28 B and 31. John Goddard of Newport, 
Rhode Island, was the foremost exponent of the type, 
and as a secretary known to have been made by him 
has the particular form of shell topping the block and 
the special style of beading on the bracket feet shown 
in Figure B of Plate 28 this piece is ascribed to him. 

Where they occur, the shell and this form of ogee 
feet with the additional beaded scroll indicate that the 
piece was made in Rhode Island and probably by 
Goddard. Occasionally the shell was omitted in this 
section. John Townsend of Middletown, Connecticut, 
had his training at Newport and his work shows 
that affinity but had not the Goddard characteristics. 

The illustration immediately above this shows a 
knee-hole block-front dressing-table, though, as they 
might be used as writing-tables if desired, they are 
often called knee-hole desks. It has straight bracket 


CHIPPENDALE 89 


feet, and is of the type made elsewhere than at Newport. 
It will be noted that in both of these the block extends 
downward through the feet, a characteristic of the fine 
pieces. 

Plate 31 shows a secretary-bookcase representing 
the best northern New England type. Its upper section 
is tall and with scrolled and hooded top accompanied 
by three spiral finials. There are two slides for candle- 
sticks beneath this upper section. The pilasters on its 
front are a survival from the “architect’s furniture” 
of Queen Anne. When the doors are closed the pilasters 
undoubtedly add much to the appearance of the piece, 
but they are of course amusingly illogical and in- 
consequent, inasmuch as when the doors are opened the 
pilasters applied to them go with them, so supporting 
nothing and leaving their upper blocks upon the frame. 
Chippendale avoided pilasters and they do not appear 
in his work. In these block-fronts the bracket and the 
claw-and-ball foot are indiscriminately used. 

The very fine secretary illustrated in Plate 32 is in 
typical Chippendale style though in general of pre- 
Chippendale design. The lower panelling is of the 
Batty Langley type adopted by this school. The 
scroll top with leaf extension to the also scrolled 
rosettes is seen in the “ Director,” and the fretted front 
and ornamented ogee bracket feet are characteristic. 
Indeed the whole piece is an exceedingly close follow- 
ing of English models, but its finish with American 
pine stamps its origin. 

The Rittenhouse clock in Drexel Institute, Phila- 
delphia, also has the scrolled rosettes with leaf ex- 
tensions, as does one of the finest of the highboys here 
illustrated—Plate 36. 

A very few secretary-bookcases with bombé (kettle) 


90 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


base were made here. Some of these have the block- 
front as well. 


HIGHBOYS AND LOWBOYS: CHESTS-OF-DRAWERS 
AND DOUBLE CHESTS 

Among these we find some of the most splendid 
examples of American craftsmanship. 

In England the highboy of Queen Anne times was 
now discontinued, because of the inconvenience in 
reaching the high upper drawers and probably also 
simply in answer to a demand for a change in fashion 
or a wish on the part of cabinet-makers to exploit a 
new mode. Perchance we do not often enough take 
into account this very human itch for change. If the 
Grand Rapids manufacturer of to-day feels that to 
“keep in the procession”’ he must provide a brand-new 
Style every season, surely a live eighteenth century 


craftsman may be granted an occasional leaning in that 


direction. And Chippendale says: “if no one drawing 
should singly answer the gentleman’s taste, there will 
yet be found a variety of hints sufficient to construct 
a new one.” 

In any event Chippendale in the “Director” gives 
the social world a most liberal choice of substitutes 


for the discarded highboy. He provides numerous 


designs for plain and for the very decorative commode, 
clothes-presses (wardrobes) and double-chests of but 
moderate height. He gives one design for a highboy, 
but with straight, fretted legs, flat top, and the right 
half occupied by a cupboard. Strange to say he also 
goes back to the antiquity of furniture-making and 
supplies a number of designs for cheSs—that most 
primitive and inconvenient of storage-pieces. He 
shows no chests-of-drawers but very fine ones with his 
characteristics were made at this period. 


a} or 
a. 


PLATE 31 


Photograph by Mary H. Northend 


BLOCK-FRONT SECRETARY-BOOKCASE OF THE BEST NORTHERN NEW 
ENGLAND TYPE 


Property of Dr. Ernest Noyes, Newburyport, Mass. 


PLATE 32 


CHIPPENDALE SECRETARY-BOOKCASE CLOSELY RESEMBLING 
ENGLISH EXAMPLES 
By Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum, New York City 


PEALE 23 


Photograph by Whitenack 


A PHILADELPHIA CHIPPENDALE ROCOCO HIGHBOY IN UNTOUCHED 
CONDITION 


By Courtesy of Howard Reifsnyder, Esq., Philadelphia 


PLATE 34 


PHILADELPHIA HIGHBOY WITH BONNET-TOP 
By Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum 


Pie Ee s 


PHILADELPHIA HIGHBOY WITH ESPECIALLY BEAUTIFUL APRON CARVING 
Loaned by Francis P. Garvan, Esq., to the Metropolitan Museum 


PLATE 236 


PHILADELPHIA HIGHBOY WITH SEPARATE PEDIMENT 
Loaned by the Estate of Mary Fell Howe to the Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia 


PLATE 37 


SMALL HIGHBOY WITH FLAT TOP 
Property of Mrs. E. S. Holloway 


PleyurD “y pseyory aiv] ayi Jo vordaljop ay2 wo1y 
NISIYO ATVONAddIHD OLLNAHLOAV AO AGOWWOD OD000¥N 


Fie ae ener 
= 

Pe ys 
ham 


\ 


Bec ow wim 


me dae 


ak ee eA OO 
~ 


& 


se ARE 6m AMM aC Ng, RRR gM Se SRA SR a RR RRO! <i a 


CHIPPENDALE gI 


New England followed old England’s trend and 
discarded the cabriole-legged highboy. Pennsylvania 
continued it, lavished upon it all the wealth of Chip- 
pendale ornament, and made of it a thing of beauty: 
with the double-chest it did the same: and later it also 
provided some excellent low chests-of-drawers. 

In the first edition of the “Director” Chippendale 
shows but one example of the scrolled pediment while 
he repeatedly employs the triangular form: yet from 
the “Director” years till well towards the end of his 
career many of the loveliest examples were made with 
the scroll pediment and fret as in the American pieces 
in Plates 36 and 39. 

Lowboys, used as dressing-tables, continued to be 
made to match the highboys. The lowboy appearing 
in Plate 136 belonged to Thomas Sully. 

The beaded edge previously mentioned occurs in 
an excellent labelled lowboy by Thomas Tufft of 
Philadelphia, who was married in 1766, acquired prop- 
erty in 1779, bought the shop mentioned in his label 
in 1780, and who was dead by 1793. 

This is the first piece by Tufft that has been found 
and is the most recent discovery of thus authenticated 
furniture. It is due to Dr. Samuel W. Woodhouse, Jr., 
associate of the Pennsylvania Museum. The lowboy 
is owned by Mrs. Edgar Wright Baird, and is repro- 
duced in Plate 44 B by her permission and through the 
kindness of Dr. Woodhouse who has also loaned me 
his photograph. 

The same form and treatment of the apron and the 
same design of knee also occur in a fine highboy bearing 
a brass plate Stating that it was formerly owned by 
Joseph Wharton and used at Walnut Grove when the 
Meschianza was held there during the British occupancy 
of Philadelphia in 1778. It is now owned by his de- 


92 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


scendant Mrs. J. Bertram (Wharton) Lippincott, of 
Philadelphia. 

The centre of the apron in the highboy is carved 
with a small ornament absent in the lowboy, while the 
handles of the highboy are much less elaborate than 
those in the lowboy. The two pieces were plainly, 
therefore, never intended as mates, but their similarity 
in all other respects would indicate the probability of 
the highboy also having been made by Tufft. 

A curious circumstance is here worth mention: the 
quarter-section column that forms the corner-finish of 
so many of these cabinet-pieces (Plates 33-35) was 
used in the Queen Anne period in both countries: in 
America it was continued in the Chippendale style: 
in England it was abandoned for cabinet-pieces, but 
used on clock-cases; and in the exceedingly rare in- 
stances in which it did appear in cabinet-pieces it was 
probably adopted from the clocks. 

Two types of cabinet-pieces will at once be noted— 
those in which the pediment is separate from the 
front (Plates 36 and 39) and those in which they are 
not separated by a cornice (Plates 33-35). 

In Plate 34 the top is hooded: in the other examples 
it is not. 

Attention has not previously been called to the 
virily carved flower as being a favourite termination 
to the scroll pediment on the part of one or more of the 
Philadelphia group. It also appears on the clock-case 
illustrated in Plate 139. The flower terminal appeared 
in English pieces but not so finely developed as in the 
American examples. 

Beautifully handled Rococo scrolls form the prin- 
cipal ornament of Plates 33-35 but it will be noted 
that the acanthus leaf is adhered to on the knees, as 
the decoration best accompanying the claw-and-ball 


CHIPPENDALE 93 


foot. The fret is used as a frieze in Plates 32 and 39, 
that in the latter being bold and of unusual design. 
In all these pieces the wood and the workmanship are 
of the highest quality. No duplicates of any of them 
have been discovered. 

The double-chest illustrated in Plate 40 is an in- 
congruous but imposing piece of furniture. It came 
from the Elias Hasket Derby mansion at Salem, Mas- 
sachusetts, of which the famous Samuel McIntire was 
architect and the wooden figures are believed to have 
been carved by him. The base is Chippendale but the 
top is wholly in the Classic vein adopted by McIntire. 

The flat-top highboy illustrated in Plate 37 is but 
4 ft., 61% in. high and 3 ft. wide and is admirably 
adapted to an apartment. Such pretty little pieces 
show the same care in the choice of material and the 
same impeccable workmanship as the larger and more 
highly ornamented examples: in this highboy the 
panels at the sides are of the choicest curled mahogany — 
veneer. 

I am particularly happy in being able to show, for 
the first time, through the kindness of Mr. Reifsnyder, 
a high chest-of-drawers in his fine collection—Plate 41. 
It is the latest-made piece of Chippendale furniture 
yet discovered, and its date in contemporary inlay is 
indisputable proof that this furniture was made in the 
Philadelphia neighbourhood as late as 1793. It was 
found at Bristol, twenty miles from Philadelphia, and 
the initials would indicate the probability of its having 
been a marriage-chest. 

The chest-of-drawers illustrated in Plate 42 is of 
double interest: it is the labelled work of a cabinet- 
maker so recently ‘“discovered’’—thanks to the tire- 
less investigators of the staff and associates of its 
owner, the Pennsylvania Museum—that his name has 


as a the 21 Ss 2s | NG ae rs aE ae ene 
| ase Ppt Ae ee 


94 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


appeared in no previous furniture-book; and the label 
itself is one of the proofs that Chippendale furniture 
continued to be made here after the Revolution. 

Jonathan Gostelowe was a cabinet-maker of dis- 
tinction in Philadelphia, a vestryman of Christ Church 
—for which he made the baptismal-font and a table- 
altar—and during the Revolution was commissioned a 
Major. At the end of the war he “resumed his former 
occupation,” as the label reads, as did other craftsmen. 

This serpentine chest-of-drawers is a fine mahogany 
piece with chamfered and fluted corners and ogee 
bracket feet. ‘Two of the elaborate escutcheons re- 
main: the original handles would of course have 
matched them in character. 

This piece closely follows some of the English ex- 
amples, but it was doubtless felt that for a low chest 
the appearance of the bracket feet is too heavy, and 
Chippendale obviated this by narrowing the chamfered 
corners and hollowing the sides, thus bringing the 
corners more towards a point and correspondingly 
reducing the width of the feet. 

An excellent straight-front chest-of-drawers is that 
shown in Plate 43. The bow-front in Plate 44 A, with 
oval handles, is late and possesses no Chippendale 
characteristics beyond its legs and feet. It is probably 
of New England make. The claw-and-ball of some 
other late pieces is particularly feeble. 


BEDSTEADS | 


The state bedsteads of England were not in use 
here. A fine example of the type made in America is 
shown in Plate 45. The head posts were plain, as they 
were intended to be covered by draperies: the posts 
at the foot of this bed are reeded and the whole elabo- 
rately carved leg is detachable from the post. This bed- 


BEATE 26 


Photograph by Whitenack 


DOUBLE-CHEST-OF-DRAWERS WITH SEPARATE FRETTED PEDIMENT AND 
FRIEZE OF UNUSUAL DESIGN 


By Courtesy of Howard Reifsnyder, Esq. 


PLATE 4o 


DOUBLE-CHEST FROM THE ELIAS HASKET DERBY HOUSE, SALEM, MASS. 
The figures are believed to have been carved by Samuel McIntire 
Loaned by Francis P. Garvan, Esq., to the Metropolitan Museum 


Pile ar 


Photograph by Whitenack 


MARRIAGE HIGH-CHEST IN WALNUT OF THE PHILADELPHIA NEIGHBOURHOOD 
The latest-made piece of Chippendale furniture as yet discovered 
By Courtesy of Howard Reifsnyder, Esq. 


PLATE 42 


CABINET anp CHA 


At his thep in Cuurcu ALLey, about! 
Second and Third-ftreets, 


B EG S$ leave to inform his foriner Cuttor 

Public in general, That he hath szain. fume 
accupation at the above mentioned place;."A renewAh@ 
favours will de thankfully received; and his beft endeavod 


fhall-be uled to give fatisfaction to thofe who pleale to emplo 


CHEST-OF-DRAWERS AND LABEL THEREIN OF JONATHAN GOSTELOWE 
PHILADELPHIA 


Made just after the Revolution 
By Courtesy of the Pennsylvania Museum 


PLATE 43 


Photograph by Whitenack 


CHIPPENDALE CHEST-OF-DRAWERS 
MAHOGANY AND GILT MIRROR OF 1790-1800 


CHIPPENDALE ROCOCO WALL-BRACKETS, PROBABLY ENGLISH 
By Courtesy of Howard Reifsnyder, Esq. 


A. LATE BOW-FRONT CHEST-OF-DRAWERS 
By Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum 


B. LABELLED LOWBOY MADE BY THOMAS TUFFT, PHILADELPHIA 


By Courtesy of the owner, Mrs. Edgar Wright Baird 
and of Dr. Samuel W. Woodhouse, Jr. 


PLATE 45 


Photograph by Whitenack 


1760 


G 


FOUR-POST BEDSTEAD OF PRE-CHIPPENDALE DESIGN 


q 


Es 


y of Howard Reifsnyder, 


By Courtes 


PLATE 46 


YIVHD UNV 


erydjapryigg ‘unasnyw viuvayAsuuag ayi fo Asazinoy Ag 
GNV.LS-NOSV@ NOLVYSHS ‘AOPMOT GNV TOOLS ATVGNAddIHD ‘AVaLsddd NVIOYOAD 


CHIPPENDALE 95 


Stead is really of pre-Chippendale design as its features 
occurred in England before his advent into business. 
The bedstead in Plate 46 is still earlier and is definitely 
_of the Georgian period. 


As I read the proof of this volume I am in receipt of 
the newly-published book: “Thomas Chippendale; a Review 
of His Life and Origin,” by Edwin J. Layton, John Murray, 
London, 1928. In it the author, solely on the ground of 
“probability,” declines to accept the identity of Thomas 
Chippendale of Otley and Thomas Chippendale of London 
and goes back to the old tradition—not indeed old, for it 
is based on an account given in Samuel Redgrave’s “ Dic- 
tionary of Artists, etc.,” published as late as 1874. 

If the father of the eminent Thomas Chippendale was 
ever in business in London some record must remain, and 
till such evidence can be produced argument would appear 
to be futile. 

This volume makes no mention of the bankruptcy of the 
younger Thomas Chippendale and apparently he was in busi- 
ness till his death. His will was proved January 28, 1823. 


FURNITURE 


THE FEDERAL STYLES 


HEPPLEWHITE, SHEARER 
AND EARLY SHERATON 


AMERICAN DIRECTOIRE 
AMERICAN EMPIRE 


HEPPLEWHITE, SHEARER, AND EARLY 
SHERATON 


THE NEW NATION 
N SEPTEMBER 1782 the preliminaries of peace 


between Great Britain and America were con- 
cluded at Paris and the treaty was signed the following 
year—when the Revolution is commonly regarded as 
ending. 

The Colonies had become a Federation of States— 
a nation: and zts furniture was no longer Colonial, but 
Federal. Chippendale was the last Colonial style. 

But—London still remained the seat of fashion 
for America; the new styles were quite as British as 
the old! For eight long years we had struggled, and 
the end was not yet. After the separation many 
questions naturally arose for settlement—particularly | 
those regarding trade relations and, later, the impress- 
ment of American seamen—and these led to irritation 
and bitterness enduring for another thirty years. As 
usual, pride, prejudice, and mere policy—three enemies 
of peace—did their work. Vision was lacking on both 
sides: no broad outlook for the future or spirit of 
kindly accommodation existed, every temporary ad- 
vantage was seized; and so again, in 1812, came war. 
“Two days before its declaration the principal pretext 
had been removed and had the electric telegraph 
existed there would have been no war.” 

Notwithstanding these events and the development 
here of the national and social consciousness ap- 
propriate to an independent and complete organisa- 
tion, English influence retained its power. Our news- 


papers of these early years give large space to British 
99 


100 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


news and social intelligence. There were announce- 
ments of goods just received from England, and 
occasionally the advertisement of some artisan newly 
arrived on our shores, with, of course, the latest styles 


in vogue in London. And so we kept abreast with the 


times. Notwithstanding our separation, England was 
Still regarded as the “home country.’ 

If, superficially, this seems strange, do we not find 
the case of England herself far more so? For centuries, 
Britain and France had been traditional enemies, yet 
—and especially from the accession of Charles [I—the 
influence of French style upon England was enormous, 
and never more so than when Great Britain with Con- 
tinental aid was doing her utmost to crush the power 
of Napoleon the First. In our case it is to be remem- 


bered that we were of British blood and were imbued ~ 


with British thought and habit; and, though we were 
rapidly developing American characteristics, traditional 
impulses are exceedingly difficult to escape. 

But by the side of these inherited tendencies we 
find the French influence, later to become so dominant 
in the enthusiasm over Lafayette’s visit in 1824 and 
1825. It was now already strong, but double-edged in 
its effect upon our people. It is an absorbing story; 
would that there were adequate room for it here! 

Many illustrious French names are among those 
of the exiles to this country from the days of the Hugue- 
nots till well on into the nineteenth century. These 
first émigrés soon assimilated themselves into our 
American life. In 1792 came the refugees from the 
revolution in St. Domingo, also those fleeing from that 
in France, and finally many of the Revolutionary 
party itself, after the restoration of order. To the 
South, Baltimore, New York, and especially Phila- 
delphia, they came in numbers, Catholics and Free- 


HEPPLEWHITE AND SHERATON IOI 


thinkers alike—most of them adaptable, genial and 
cheerful in surmounting their misfortunes, a few lofty, 
critical, and troubling. In Philadelphia they were 
welcomed by Mrs. Bingham and by the influential 
Philosophical Society, of which a number became 
valued members. Many Philadelphians were imbued 
with the Gallic craze and took on French manners and 
ways of thinking. On the other hand the cynical lack 
of principle of Talleyrand (whom Washington refused 
to receive), the activities of Citizen Genet, the cold yet 
peevish criticism of Volney, and the like, had their 
contrary effect, so that the latter on reémbarking in 
1798 speaks of the “epidemic animosity against the 
French.” It was much more likely sporadic, and 
directed solely against those who had made themselves 
unwelcome. 

One phase of the matter is distinctly curious. We 
already know of the lavish scale of living in Phila- 
delphia; we are aware, too, of the very democratic | 
opinions of the men to be mentioned. But they were 
men of birth and used to the high life of Continental 
Europe, and it seems strange that Volney should con- 
demn the growing luxury in America, expecting it to 
draw down upon us incursions from the Algerian 
pirates, and that Brissot de Warville also inveighed 
against the “luxury and refinement of American cities 
as a decay of republican simplicity.” 

Why should any one expect American cities in 
their human aspects to be very different from other 
cities? The Quaker has never been accused of in- 
ability to make and to hold the dollar, and though he 
lived simply he lived exceeding well: the New Eng- 
lander found no incompatibility between cast-iron 
virtue and that form of near-piracy called privateering: 
New York was established as a trading-post and cer- 


102 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


tainly has never failed in living up to its primary 
purpose. It always was a mad world, my masters! 
and with a vast deal of humbug. Through the ages 
the wealthy have lived extravagantly and there are 
no indications of their ceasing to do so. 

The effect upon our furniture and decoration of all 
this French influence was to appear in its fulness a 
few years later—and we shall realise, perhaps with 
some surprise, how much of it even then came by way 
of London! 


But in the years we are now to consider the styles 
of Hepplewhite and Sheraton held the field. 

By about 1790 America was fully ready for these 
new styles in furniture and decoration. Furniture 
designed in the Shearer and Hepplewhite modes was 
made here as much as five years earlier, but we can 
now see the full flowering of the Classic styles. 

Our infant nation had experienced the usual troubles 
of childhood and had with difficulty found its own 
political feet. Now it stood alone, alert and vigorous. 
The Constitution went into force in 1789. In the same 
year Washington was inaugurated first President, and 
again as leader was proving himself both strong and 
wise. The battle for Democracy was already on, but 
society and politics remained essentially aristocratic. 
Financially we were fast recovering from the exhaustion 
of war; again there was money to spend and a desire 
for the amenities and luxuries of life. 


THE NEW STYLES 


We may very briefly see how the new styles came 
into being; for all these matters have to do with the 


very existence of the American furniture of this period—_ 


one of the finest of them all. The discovery of the 


HEPPLEWHITE AND SHERATON 103 


buried Roman cities of Herculaneum and Pompeii 
early in the century had caused a permanent sensation 
all through Europe, resulting in the rebirth of the 
Classic influence. 

A man may apparently be a throw-back; he may 
greatly resemble the portrait of his great-grandfather, 
painted at about his own age; he may largely have the 
qualities that made his ancestor notable in his family, 
but—he will not be a duplicate of his great-grandfather. 
He will lack qualities of his forebear; others will have 
been added. For if heredity has its influence, so do the 
passage of time and the spirit of the age have theirs. 

While, therefore, the Renaissance was a Classic 
movement, it was not that of Greece and Rome: while 
the very term Neo-Classic shows its inspiration, it 
also implies its modernity. It was neither the Classi- 
cism of the ancients nor of the Renaissance—it was the 
new Classicism of the late eighteenth century, and bore 
its characteristics. This was not a large and spacious age; 
it was one of luxury and, at least outward, refinement. 

While in England, in France, and in Italy, this 
Classicism was the result of a fresh study of ancient 
work, either from the remains of ancient buildings or 
their pictorial reproductions, it was, in all three coun- 
tries, a smaller, more attenuated version of the past. 

By 1760 we already find in France what we know 
as the style of Louis XVI—fourteen years before the 
death of the predecessor of that monarch. As has 
been mentioned in the Chippendale chapter, by 
February, 1758, Robert Adam, returning from four 
years first-hand study of the classic remains of Central 
and Southern Europe, had opened his London office. 
He speedily became the most famous architect of his 
time, with an influence so great that these years are 
often, and justly, termed the Adam Period. The 


104. AMERICAN FURNITURE 


classic architects, but Adam above all through both his 
architecture and furniture, may be said to have for- 
mulated classic contour and ornament for the cabinet- 
makers, and their enormous indebtedness to him is 
seen throughout their productions. 

Yet no Adam furniture was made here. It was 
through Shearer, Hepplewhite, and Sheraton that 
American furniture became classic. The reason is 
obvious. All three of the widely known men issued 
books, and Shearer’s designs were included in still 
another volume, but the “‘ Works of Robert and James 
Adam” illustrated their architecture and contained no 
designs of what we term “household furniture.” His 
own pieces were mostly elaborate and for palatial estab- 
lishments. Even had our craftsmen had access to 
them, they would not have been apt to adopt such 
costly and ornamental types as models. 

To be sure, his less elaborate furniture was imitated 
by others, but this was evidently either too late or had 
too little influence to penetrate to our shores before we 
were cut off by the Revolution. At its ending Hepple- 
white’s style was dominant in England and was adopted 
here. 

Shearer was an excellent designer, and we shall see 
some of his work, but his reputation has been smoth- 
ered by those of his more eminent compeers. 

We do not know when George Hepplewhite entered 
business. He died in 1786 and the establishment was 
carried on by his widow Alice under the firm name of 
A. Hepplewhite & Co. ‘The Cabinet Maker’s and 
Upholsterer’s Guide” was published under those aus- 
pices in 1789. The plates are dated as being published 
in 1787, but whether this publication was general or 
merely formal would be difficult to determine. 

There were but slight omissions and additions in 


HEPPLEWHITE AND SHERATON 105 


the second and third editions, the latter being pub- 
lished in 1794. 

The preface to the first edition of that volume 
claims that its designs follow “the latest or most pre- 
vailing fashion only”’ and we do not know how closely 
the furniture previously made by this firm conformed 
to the designs shown in the book. The earliest date 
that we are aware of Hepplewhite furniture being made 
here is about 1785. 

Two of the early advertisements are of special 
interest as bearing on this point. The first is of Jan- 
uary 8, 1785, in the Pennsylvania Packet, where among 
the articles advertised as being made and sold by 
Samuel Claphamson “late from London” and then of 
Philadelphia, are “oval and circular card-tables”’; 
these forms indicating the style of Hepplewhite. 

And the Virginia Gazette and Petersburg Intelligencer, 
for December 27, 1787, contains an advertisement of 
Henry Monroe, “in Petersburg Street opposite Mr. 
Barkdale’s store,” of a large and elegant assortment of 
mahogany furniture manufactured in Philadelphia, 
including circular and square card-tables, and com- 
mode chairs “all inlaid.”’ Inlaying was not employed 
in America in the Chippendale period and this is an 
unmistakable reference to the new style. Furthermore, 
though there were excellent cabinet-makers in the 
South (we even know some of their names), this an- 
nouncement proves that the Virginians still adhered 
to their practice of bringing considerable furniture 
from the northern port. 

In towns occupied by the British, imported pieces 
of course found free ingress during the war. For in- 
Stance, William Smith, on the Bay, Charleston, South 
Carolina, announces in the Royal Gazette in October, 
1781, among goods received from London, “tea and 


ey as Bee AN NS 


106 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


card tables, plain and beautifully inlaid” and “chairs 
of sattin and other woods.” 

The new mode seems to have soon become popular, 
but most of this furniture, especially the more im- 
portant pieces, was likely made after the publication 
of the ‘‘Guide,” that is to say, from about 1790 on- 
ward, after our craftsmen would have had an oppor- 
tunity of obtaining this volume. 

There is no evidence or likelihood that Thomas 
Sheraton ever made furniture either in his native town 
of Stockton-on-Tees or after he came to London as a 
journeyman in 1790—he was never a master cabinet- 
maker. He died in destitution in 1806, yet he was one 
of the greatest designers of furniture that England has 
produced. 

It is not probable that every design in his “ Drawing- 
Book” was original, and indeed there are evidences to 
the contrary, and it is plain that he was very free in 
helping himself to the ideas of Adam, Hepplewhite, 
and the French designers. But even to his borrowings 
he gave the mark of his own individuality. It is 
possible that some pieces in what we know as the 
“Sheraton Jyle”’ appeared here even before his advent 
in the furniture world; but so far as definitely Sheraton 
work is concerned the following facts must be remem- 
bered. The usual date given for the publication of the 
*Drawing-Book”’ is 1791, but this book was issued in 
parts, and it was not till Part III that he arrived at 
plates of designs for furniture. The first of these plates 
is dated as published November 18, 1791, but almost 
all the remaining ones are dated 1792 and 1793, so that 
the part containing these designs was evidently not 
issued till the latter year. There was an Appendix 
containing some very fine things, and the plates in this 
are dated as published in 1793 and 1794. The last 


inthe 
a 
4 
> tat 
ae ae 
es 
—# 4 
; f 
?, 


HEPPLEWHITE AND SHERATON 107 


edition of the book was issued in 1802 but contains 
no plates dated later than 1794. 

“Sheraton” furniture was made not by him but by 
others. He was an unknown man when he published 
his book, and the designs shown therein had to win 
recognition and adoption by cabinet-makers in England 
and become known in America. While we must be 
very hesitant in dealing with doubtful matters, I cannot 
help but feel that strictly Sheraton American furniture, 
and especially that plainly based upon his book, should 
not be dated before 1794 or 1795. 


THE CHANGES MADE IN THE NEW STYLES 


It is well to be prepared in advance for the great 
changes that we shall find, so as to know for what to 
look, in our American as well as in English furniture. 

We are so accustomed to seeing the Chippendale 
and Classic styles, and frequently in the same room, 
that the extent of their differences is hardly realised 
by the general observer. If the reader—as an apéritif 
—will occupy a few minutes in a general comparison 
of the Chippendale illustrations with those in this 
chapter he will then see in contrast what amounts to 
virtually two conceptions of furniture design. 

Chippendale furniture is robust and big, and the 
curves of its ornament are free and flowing: this fur- 
niture is light and slender and its outline is severe—yet 
it possesses the greatest charm and refinement. The 
corners of Chippendale cabinet-pieces were softened 
by such means as chamfers, rounding and carving, and 
columns; here they are angular and sharp. The sur- 
faces of Chippendale pieces were often relieved by 
ornate carving; now surfaces are flat and the ornament 
employed is inlay or painting. Veneering with beauti- 
fully grained woods was extensively practiced. 


108 - AMERICAN FURNITURE 


Much of the curvilinear element was retained by 
Hepplewhite but largely discarded by Sheraton—his 
work is almost wholly rectangular. In both styles the 
bold mouldings of Chippendale have now been aban- 
doned or reduced to delicacy in scale. That magnificent 
borrower and exquisite draftsman, that Baptist 
preacher from Stockton-on-Tees who in deftness and 
refinement designed more like a Frenchman than any 
other man born on English soil, Thomas Sheraton, was 
a master of scale, and in this respect carried English 
furniture to a perfection it had never known before. 

In this period the woods employed were of generally 
lighter colour than formerly, the mahogany often being 
finished naturally with little or no use of permanganate 
of potash. Satinwood, ebony, rosewood, birch, and 
maple were used for inlays and veneers. The decorative 
motifs were, of course, classic and generally derived 
from architecture. Handles were of appropriate 
delicacy. 


We have seen that the ornate phase of Chippendale 
developed in pleasure-loving Philadelphia was not 
taken up in New England, but though the Pennsylvania 
neighbourhood still retained all its ability, its craftsmen 
of the present period were now equalled by many of 
those of Massachusetts. The chaste beauty and re- 
Straint in ornament characteristic of these classic styles 
seem especially to have appealed to the New England 
temperament and admirably to have satisfied its ideals 
in furniture. 

This section of our country had now increased in 
wealth, some of its ship-owners living in almost princely 
Style. Furthermore, with the influx of new arrivals 
and the growth of new generations under urbane con- 


HEPPLEWHITE AND SHERATON 109 


ditions, a more liberal spirit prevailed and beauty in 
the home met its due recognition. 


It may be a relief to the reader if he is assured that 
he need feel under no obligation of being able definitely 
to term every piece of the American furniture of this 
period either Hepplewhite or Sheraton; in England the 
Styles overlapped quite sufficiently, for these men and 
others were all working in the Neo-classic manner, 
while our American craftsman added his own individu- 
ality, made choice of his own ingredients, and often 
used them as he pleased. 


THE FURNITURE 


CHAIRS 


Although a few complications exist even here, 
chairs are much freer from them than is cabinet- 
furniture. 

HEPPLEWHITE CHAIRS 

The shield-back and interlaced-heart chairs (Plates 
47 B—51) are of course Hepplewhite—they are so 
characteristic that they are as easily recognised as the 
Chippendale chair. Sheraton also gave two designs 
for shield-backs (one of them appears in Plate 68 A) 
but the top-rails were flattened: as they do not seem 
to have been made in America they need give us no 
concern. | 

Before the typical examples, came those that were 
a transition from the Chippendale style to this, and 
which preserved the earlier back uprights, or Stiles, 
while adopting the serpentine top-rail and Hepplewhite 
ornament—Plate 47 A. The back of the chair illus- 
trated is full of charming Hepplewhite details and the 
tapered legs are of this style. The wheat-ear is a very 


110 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


frequent ornament at the top of these chairs and it 
also appears in the next example, which is in the full 
Hepplewhite mode. 

Another early chair is the hoop-back; often with a 
depression in the hoop at the centre, or two depressions 
—one at each side of the centre. 

These early chairs are in England credited to the 
Hepplewhite school, but whether George Hepplewhite 
had any hand in them we do not know. 

The upholstered shield-back was a Louis XVI mode, 
but Hepplewhite took it over, filled the back with a 
variety of fine designs, and made the type his own. 
The three feathers of the Prince of Wales was one of his 
favourite motifs. In Plate 49 A this device is, un- 
usually, rendered in palm leaves. , 

The Hepplewhite chair is of great refinement and 
beauty. There is inherent weakness in its construction 
of back, but the formal social life of England did not 
expose it to great risk of breakage: here these backs 
were sometimes made heavier. In any case numbers 
of them have survived a century and a third of usage. 

The securing of the arm-supports at the sides (as 
in Plates 47 B and 49 B) was a favourite method with 
Hepplewhite, but he did not confine himself to it and 
two other treatments are shown in Plates 51 B and 52. 

The variety in the forms of seats should also be 
noted. The covering of the seat-rail was most usual 
but the drop-in seat also occurred. The serpentine 
form of the bottom of the seat-rail, sometimes seen, 
was derived from Adam. | 

Hepplewhite’s ‘‘Guide” illustrates the use of a 
number of leg designs but that which most often ap- 
pears in American work is the square, tapered leg, 
plain or waved, with or without spade feet, and with 
or without stretchers. Those with stretchers are 


PLATE 47 


A B 
Transition from Chippendale Shield-back Arm Chair 


HEPPLEWHITE CHAIRS 
By Courtesy of Charles Woolsey Lyon, Inc., New York City 


wnasny vruvajAsuuag sy], 
02 AlUaH WOIOM sesvyD “ssf JO YIH 
SYIVHO ACIS ADVE-ATAIHS ALIHMATdddH 


d 


uoriq 4q ydesso104g 
‘bsq ‘sapAusjioy piemoy jo Asazsnog Ag 


Vv 


PLATE 49 


A. The Three Feathers Composed of Palm-Leaves B. Arm Chair with French Splay-Feet 


HEPPLEWHITE SIDE AND ARM CHAIR 
By Courtesy of Charles Woolsey Lyon, Inc., New York City 


A. HEPPLEWHITE CHAIR WITH CORNUCOPIA BALUSTERS 
By Courtesy Charles Woolsey Lyon, Inc. 


B. AN ATTRACTIVE BACK-DESIGN 


ed EST 


i Searceon 


CR 


A. HEPPLEWHITE INTERLACED-HEART SIDE CHAIRS 


B. HEPPLEWHITE DECORATED CHAIRS WITH MAHOGANY ARMS 


By Courtesy of Howard Reifsnyder, Esq. 
Photographs by Dillon 


PLATE 52 


Baluster Arm-Support | 
Hepplewhite's “Guide” 
Plateto, Pub-July 2.1787 @ 


peer. SS ES 
in TAMERS OREM eM ETE ETT DN 


REESE ee 


% 
s 
* 
i 
* 
* 
oa 


44 


SAAS AS IID ITY as 


SHERATON CHAIRS WITH STRETCHERS 


Loaned by Mrs. J. Woolston to 
The Pennsylvania Museum 


Loaned by Mrs. Arthur Biddle to 
The Pennsylvania Museum 


PLATE 54 


w 


wnasnyy ueipodossyy 2y2 02 “bsg ‘Aasyepy sourepyy “y, “y Aq pouroy 
NOISHG ALSVHO AO SULVHD ACIS NOLVUYAHS 


HEPPLEWHITE AND SHERATON III 


usually considered the earlier in England, but their use 
probably depended greatly upon their appropriateness 
to the general contour and weight of the chair. 

One chair with the French splayed foot is shown 
in Plate 49 B. The Hepplewhite firm made much 
furniture in what they frankly called “The French 
taste’’ but the phase was not adopted in America. 

Two of the most charming of the back-designs are 
those in Plate 50. In A each baluster is a cornucopia. 
That of B would appear to be an American design, as 
I have never seen it in an English chair. However— 
one who has closely observed furniture for a number of 
years may write that he has never seen a certain 
feature under certain conditions and, as soon as that 
Statement gets into print, may encounter the very 
thing! 

Plate 51 B illustrates a pair of painted chairs in 
which the original decoration of blue forget-me-nots 
on an old ivory ground has carefully been restored. 
The arms are of mahogany. According to a certificate 
or. declaration signed by the Rev. George W. Mac- 
laughlin, these chairs were presented to him in 1864 
by Colonel Jones, a nephew of Mr. Chew, at the time 
Mr. Maclaughlin was pastor of the Haines Street M. E. 
Church, Germantown, the certificate stating that they 
occupied positions in the reception-room or parlour 
of the famous Chew House, Cliveden, Germantown, 


_ Philadelphia. 


SHERATON CHAIRS 


The two outstanding characteristics of all Sheraton 
furniture are its slenderness and the avoiding of the 
curve in favour of the straight line. His chairs have, 
therefore, the rectangular, or as they are often called, 
the “square” back. 


112 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


It so happens that Hepplewhite in his “Guide” 
had given a number of designs for square-back chairs, 
and we know from Sheraton’s slurring reference in his 
own preface that he was familiar with them. So far 
as I am aware but two of Hepplewhite’s were made, 
and tracings from the “Guide” are given in Plate 52. 
If the reader will compare the first of these with the 
first design in Plate 68 A he will see how free was 
Sheraton in helping himself to the ideas of Hepple- 
white. Furthermore, in Plate 52 C is also given a 
tracing of a vase-shaped arm-support. This is the 
only example of it given by Hepplewhite, and, whether 
or no it suggested the form to Sheraton, the fact re- 
mains that in one phase or another it is Sheraton’s 
favourite treatment in arm-chairs and sofas. It will 
be seen in the tracing of a sofa from his own book in 
Plate 57 B and in all the Sheraton American sofas 
illustrated here. 

Stretchers were not very usual in English Sheraton 
chairs of this type but frequently appeared in American 
examples: indeed the whole lower portions of the two 
chairs in Plate 53 are distinctly Hepplewhite. Fig. B 
in this plate was presented to the great-grandfather of 
the present owner by General Washington, and Mr. 
Halsey tells us that a set similar to Plate 54 B was a 
part of the library furnishings of the Cherry Street 
house Washington used as the first Presidential mansion 
in New York. As a number of exactly the same pattern 
have been found in old houses in that city, all are 
probably of New York origin. 

Most of the American Sheraton chairs are in these 


simple, chaste designs; but a very ornamental back is — 


seen in Plate 55. ‘This chair is in the possession of a 
descendant of a well-known old New York family and 
so, too, was almost surely made there. 


HEPPLEWHITE AND SHERATON 113 


The design of chair-back shown in Plate 54 A does 
not appear in Sheraton’s book but the whole piece is a 
virtual duplicate of some original English Sheraton 
chairs: thus showing that in this period also our 
craftsmen sometimes worked from imported pieces, 
drawings or templets. On the other hand Plate 53 B 
and the chair in Plate 79 are respectively very close 
and direct renderings of Sheraton’s design No. 1 in 
Plate 68 A. 

Sheraton’s favourite back-treatment was the straight 
baluster seen in all these chairs and the diagonal form 
appearing in the chair from the Cadwalader house, 
Philadelphia, and made in that city, appearing in 
Plate 93. Sometimes they were combined, the diagonal 
of the upper portion joining perpendicular balusters 
below. 

Notwithstanding all his “borrowings,” there is a 
certain quality in Sheraton’s typical design that is 
difficult to describe in language but that will be felt 
by one appreciative of loveliness in proportion and 
form: this quality is inherent in most of his chair 
backs. I regret that the number of illustrations for 
which I must find room forbids my showing all his 
plates. It is a deprivation to American furniture that 
our craftsmen rendered so few of these designs. 

A ladder-back of these classic years is shown in 
Plate 56. ‘This influence is evident in its slenderness 
and refinement of detail. 


SOFAS 


In this period, too, both multiple chair-back set- 
tees, immediately recognisable by the style of back, 
and upholstered sofas were made. Of the latter, two 
typical examples of Hepplewhite’s have been traced 
from the “Guide” and are reproduced in Plate 57 A. 


114 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


Good American examples of the Hepplewhite sofa are 
decidedly scarce: Sheraton’s style followed closely 
upon Hepplewhite’s and displaced it, so that, except 
for chairs, we find less furniture of the earlier than of 
the later style. 

Plate 58 shows how our craftsmen both followed 
and departed from originals. Plate 57 A gives two of 
Hepplewhite’s own designs and it will be seen how here 
the characteristics of the two have been united. But 
the high roll of the arms is that of the type familiar 
through the Chippendale period and persisting in Hep- 
plewhite years both in England and America—Plate 
23 B. The drooping arm typified in Hepplewhite’s 
Plate 24 (the lower tracing) was definitely however one 
of his phases. In some entirely upholstered pieces with 
rounded back the arms curve immediately and grace- 
fully downward. The well-known Hepplewhite sofa in 
the Brooklyn Museum, in which the wood of the arms 
appears, has the droop in double concaves. The husk 
ornaments the front of its tapered square legs. 

The fine example illustrated here (Plate 58) has a 
delightful back-ornament of a basket of flowers upon a 
stippled ground, with rosettes and waterleaf sprays 
upon the arms. Qualities of the workmanship will be 
referred to in connexion with the Sheraton sofa illus- 
trated in Plate 60 made by the same cabinet-maker, 
who is believed to have come from Salem, Massachusetts. 

A typical Sheraton design, traced from his “ Draw- 
ing-Book,”’ is the lowest figure on Plate 57. Of these 
sofas Sheraton says: “If the top rail be thought to 
have too much work, it can be finished in a straight 
rail, as the design shows.” Most of our American 
craftsmen took Sheraton’s hint, but some one or more 
of those in Salem, Massachusetts, not only followed 
the original form in this period, as in Plate 60, but 


Aa 


AN ORNATE SHERATON CHAIR-BACK 
Chair probably made in New York 
Photograph by Courtesy of A. F. C. Bateman Co., Philadelphia 


PLATE 56 


2 


LADDER-BACK CHAIR OF THE CLASSIC PERIOD 


PEATE 7 


Plote 22, 3%ed'n. 
Pub. Sept. 1787 


| Sm Tas nn go ot See 
— > ri 
ih m) 
) : y 
y a 
, Plate 24 4 


Pub. Sept. 1.1787 


A. TWO SOFA DESIGNS FROM HEPPLEWHITE’S ‘‘GUIDE"’ 


B. SOFA DESIGN FROM SHERATON'S “DRAWING-BOOK” 


PLATE 58 


“bsq ‘12anyD payyy e8soay jo Asaamoy Ag 


SLLASNHOVSSVW ‘WaATVS NI AGVW Nadad SAVH OL GasOddNS VAOS ALIHMATddaH NVOIYANV 
psozjoo weping Aq ydvsZo10y4g 


sey tenn ey rtntapmemntin 


PLATE 59 


Photograph by Dillon 


SHERATON SOFA BY DUNCAN PHYFE, NEW YORK 
By Courtesy of Howard Reifsnyder, Esq., Philadelphia 
Note the characteristic Phyfe ornament of back-rail 


PLATE 60 


q@4S a1¥]q Ul USIsap s,uoIvIaYS JO SutMo][oy asoz> ay2 210N 
AW) YIOX MON ‘wnasnypy urayodonayy] ayq2 jo Asa1snoy Ag 


SLLASNHOVSSVW ‘WATVS NI JAVW Naga AAVH OL GysOddNs VIOS NOLVYAHS 


Paitktnnte beter 


ULWIYDUIPY “¢ vIIsIeBsey ssi Aq ‘erydjapeyryg ‘wnssnyy viuvalAsuuag aq], 01 pauvoy 
cogt *) “NOVA-TEINVD DNILSISYAd HLIM VIOS GOOMNILVYS GNV ANVOOHVW CIV'INI NOLVYdHS 


jalan va NBD 


Me 
he) 


PLATE 


61 


PLATE (62 


Plate 5, Fig.2 
Pub.1788 


TWO DESIGNS FOR SIDEBOARDS BY SHEARER 
From “The Cabinet Maker's London Book of Prices,"’ 1788 
Note alternative contours for the sides in the upper plate and the four decorative treatments of legs 


HEPPLEWHITE AND SHERATON IIS 


carried it into the Empire style as in Plate 123. The 
first of these displays in its back-design the American 
eagle, so frequently appearing in our furniture from 
now onward. 

This sofa—a rather recent acquisition of the Metro- 
politan Museum—is believed to be the work of the 
same man as the Hepplewhite sofa previously men- 
tioned; the characteristics of clean, sharp carving and 
Stippled background prevailing in both. The frieze of 
the back in this Sheraton sofa is the alternate fluting 
and rosette motif extensively used by Samuel McIntire, 
the Salem architect, in his following of the Adam style, 
of which he was a leading exponent. It is a common 
“property” of that style—see the lower moulding of 
the entablature of the Adam mantel in Plate 133. The 
Hepplewhite firm in England freely employed it as the 
frieze of numbers of their cabinet-pieces, most of which 
till quite late in their career were thoroughly Adam- 
esque in detail. 

Duncan Phyfe of New York in his earlier manner 
was one of the principal exponents of the Sheraton 
Style. We shall see more of his work in the Diredfotre 
chapter, but the sofa in Plate 59 is a very fine ex- 
ample. The three-panelled back-rail was one of Phyfe’s 
original and favourite treatments and extended into 
his Diredfoire derivations. The carved ornaments of 
this rail will be treated in connexion with these. Phyfe 
sometimes turned the outer ends of the arms of Sheraton 
sofas inward. | 

English furniture is full of survivals from previous 
periods, and American is “more so.”’ The camel-back 
of both Chippendale and Hepplewhite is still seen in 
the Sheraton sofa in Plate 61. In all these examples 
the round fluted leg and the vase arm-support are 
employed. It will be noted that the back in Plate 61 


116 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


is entirely upholstered, no wood showing above the 
base save the arms. Rounded backs occur and they 
are treated in the same manner. 

Caning was also used in this period. 


SIDEBOARDS 


The case of sideboards is very different from that 
of seating-furniture—even the attributions of well- 
known writers sometimes vary, and it will soon be 
seen that they may easily do so. 

The naming of furniture styles after individuals, 
which began with Chippendale, has not proved an 
unmixed blessing. The overlapping of the schools 
of Hepplewhite and Sheraton, particularly in America, 
_ where our craftsmen sometimes combined the contours 
or motifs of two or more designers, makes it practically 
impossible to assign some furniture with certainty; and 
it is for that reason that here they are considered to- 
gether. There is much in favour of calling it all Neo- 
Classic and being done with complications, and yet 
our sense of fairness bids us give honour where honour 
is due. Furthermore, it is almost impossible to change 
an existing custom. The sensible course seems to be 
to give credit when we can, and follow the alternative 
when we must. 

By the law of compensation, a very happy result 
of these complications is that in attempting to learn 
to differentiate the styles one gathers far more informa- 
tion about the furniture of this whole period than he 
would be likely to accumulate in any other way: for 
real observation and comparison are the two essentials 
in the study of any furniture. 

It will be as entertaining to the reader as a cross- 
word puzzle to take up this matter as if, of his own 


: 


HEPPLEWHITE AND SHERATON 117 


accord, he were trying to elucidate these differences as 
regards our American pieces. 

He may possibly hear this “easy rule.” 

1. “The square, tapered leg, especially with the 
spade foot, is Hepplewhite.” 

2. “The round, fluted leg is Sheraton.” 

3. “If cabinet-furniture is inlaid it is Hepplewhite: 
Sheraton pieces are usually mahogany without inlay.” 

We shall presently examine these dicta. But I 
may here give a word of warning: if one accepts and 
applies them and then takes a trip to London—the 
home of these styles, be it remembered—and, visiting 
there the shops of the leading dealers, calls certain 
pieces of furniture Hepplewhite, he may be surprised 
to be greeted with the remark: “‘ But, my dear sir, that 
is Sheraton, don’t you know!”” He may experience the 
same surprise if he studies the books of English author- 
ities on the subject. 

Among sideboards—and other corresponding fur- 
niture—there is one type at least that causes no diffi- 
culty and that may at once be eliminated from dis- 
cussion. In England and in America the style shown 
in Plates 70 and 71, in which the leg stands out beyond 
the body of the piece—the architectural “engaged 
column” transferred to furniture—is unfailingly Sher- 
aton. And the lion-head dropped-ring handle is also 
his. The dropped-ring with ornamental centre-piece 
seen in these two examples is earlier, but is usually in 
America confined to Sheraton furniture. 

First of all, one investigating the subject would be 
likely to feel that the books of Hepplewhite and 
Sheraton should be consulted, and that there he would 
find authoritative information. I have already given 
some hints as to their incompleteness as a satisfactory 
exposition of the actual Styles of the respective schools, 


118 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


but let us see what they will do for our enlightenment. 
As these books, even in their reprints, are somewhat 
costly and not easily come by, and as only the leading 
libraries have them, where they are held as works of 
reference, I have afforded the reader some help by 
making tracings of the illustrations that principally 
interest us here. 


CONTOUR 


A number of designs by Thomas Shearer appear in 
“The Cabinet-Makers London Book of Prices,” pub- 
lished in 1788. These show much ability, and his 
name, so long overwhelmed by greater reputations, 
should be more publicly recognised. He gives five 
designs for sideboards, and I have traced the two which 
more especially concern us—Plate 62. The other three 
are a plain bow-front, a semi-circular, and a bow-front 
with pedestals, for urns, attached. 

To Shearer is given the credit of introducing the 
sideboard current at the period we are considering, 
because of the publication of the book containing the 
designs in 1788 while Hepplewhite’s “Guide” was not 
issued till the following year. But on the two Hepple- 
white plates, also traced in Plate 64, are engraved the 
publication dates 1787. As I have mentioned, we do 
not know whether this publication was merely formal 
or otherwise; but as Hepplewhite—or his widow—says 
in the text that: “The great utility of this piece of fur- 
niture has procured it a very general reception,” he 
would appear to have made such sideboards anterior 
to the publication of the book. 

However this may be, it will at once be evident, 
by comparison, that the type of sideboard illustrated 
here by Mr. Reifsnyder’s very fine example in Plate 63 
and which is universally called “‘Hepplewhite”’ is, so 


PLATE 63 


croc 
SATE! 


Photograph by Dillon 


HEPPLEWHITE SIDEBOARD IN INLAID MAHOGANY, WITH SATINWOOD URNS 
Made in the Philadelphia Neighbourhood 
By Courtesy of Howard Reifsnyder, Esq. 


PLATE 64 


Plate 29, 37 ed’n. 


TWO DESIGNS FOR SIDEBOARDS FROM HEPPLEWHITE’S “GUIDE” 


PES LEGS 


Fink Otp SHERATON MAHOGANY INLAID SERPENTINE SIDEBOARD, 6 FT. 6 IN. LONG. 


A. By Courtesy of M. Harris & Sons, New Oxford Street, London 


SURE om eIRR es Hainan 


, 


% 


Genuine Inlaid Antique Sheraton Serpentine 
Sideboard, in original condition; and numerous 
others in stock. 


B. By Courtesy of C. Angell, Bath, England 


.. ENGLISH INLAID SERPENTINE SIDEBOARDS AND THEIR ATTRIBUTIONS 


PLATE 66 


HM} 


me |] 


0 


A. A DESIGN FOR A SIDEBOARD, BY SHERATON 


Plate 29,Dec.1791 


Plate 31. May. 1704 


Ge 66, May. 1794 


B. PERSPECTIVE CONTOURS OF SIDEBOARD TOPS 


ALL FROM SHERATON’S “‘DRAWING-BOOK” 


Photograph by Dillon 


SHERATON INLAID MAHOGANY SIDEBOARD 
By Courtesy of Howard Reifsnyder, Esq., Philadelphia 


PLATE 68 


CHAR Backs. cs 


Publisted by 7 Sheraton, Ang 1792 


A. SHERATON CHAIR-BACKS. PLATE 36 OF HIS “*DRAWING-BOOK” 


Old Sheraton. satinwood Side Table, 4 ft. 4 in. wide. 


B. AN ENGLISH RENDERING OF PLATE 4 OF SHERATON’S APPENDIX 
By Courtesy of W. F. Greenwood & Sons, Ltd., York and Harrowgate 


PLATE 69 


SHERATON SIDEBOARD OR LARGE PIER-TABLE, IN LIGHT MAHOGANY, INLAID 
AN AMERICAN RENDERING OF PLATE 4 OF THE APPENDIX TO SHERATON’S ‘“‘DRAWING-BOOK"”’ 
By Courtesy of Charles Woolsey Lyon, Inc., New York City 


PLATE 7o 


puayion “Y Asey av] aq2 yo Asaimnop Ag 
SOUT GAGNALXA OLLSIVALIVUVHO AHL HLIM GUVOdECIS NOLVYAHS GNVTIONY MAN 


HEPPLEWHITE AND SHERATON 119 


far as the books go, of the first Shearer model, in that 
the top is in front an unbroken serpentine line. Further- 
more, it, like Shearer’s design, is lighter than the 
Hepplewhite. Nevertheless it is credited to Hepple- 
white and I think that this very beautiful type with 
little ornament would be called Hepplewhite in England 
as well as here; but the serpentine sideboard seems to 
have afforded “‘a free race for all.”” One of the Shearer 
tracings shows the form unbroken; one of Hepple- 
white’s gives it with straight spaces above the legs; 
Sheraton does not show it at all, but this contour con- 
Stantly appears in existing Sheraton sideboards. Those 
of the type of the English examples in Plate 65 are in 
that country universally considered as Sheraton. I 
could illustrate numerous advertisements of most 
experienced, widely known English dealers where, 
without exception, they are so denominated, but these 
two, with their own attributions reproduced beneath, 
will suffice as examples. Furthermore, Mr. Herbert 
Ceszinsky, the foremost living authority on English 
furniture, illustrates the same type in his section on 
Thomas Sheraton in Volume III of his “English Fur- 
niture of the Eighteenth Century.” On the other 
hand in America these sideboards are frequently 
credited to Hepplewhite. 

As this is probably done because they are inlaid 
(as per the so-called “rule,’”’) let us investigate inlay. 


INLAY 


Sheraton in a large proportion of his designs used 
elaborate ornament: but the English cabinet-maker in 
actually rendering them frequently simplified—as did 
our own men. ‘The type of inlay then used is seen in 
the two English sideboards illustrated and consisted 
mainly of a line, or “string,” inlay with fan or other 


120 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


paterae, triangular fans, shells, and the like. It appears 
in much English furniture of unmistakable Sheraton 
Style,. such as secretary-bookcases, desks, and par- 
ticularly in small tables. The same general type ap- 
peared in Hepplewhite furniture as well, for 1 was a 
common property of the period and was employed in both 
Styles and in both countries. 

I will at once instance a case in which the exclusive 
identification of inlay with the Hepplewhite mode 
would lead us distinctly astray. Plate 69 shows us an 
extremely graceful type of sideboard, or large pier- 
table—and it has this type of inlay. If the “rule” 
were followed the piece would be called Hepplewhite. 
What is it? It is a rendering of Plate 4 of the Appendix 
in Sheraton’s “ Drawing-Book”—a pier-table of the 
same design, but with an urn and pendants upon the 
centre of the stretcher and very ornamental round legs. 
It is indeed a very ornamental piece throughout—but 
it was simplified in the making in England in at least 
one instance and that instance is illustrated in Plate 
68 B here. Compare it with this sideboard Mr. Lyon 
has so kindly allowed me to show—Plate 69. The 
type of inlay is the same, though the pattern is differ- 
ent, and it is pleasing to be able to say in this case the 
American example is superior. 

Now what shall we call this sideboard? It is 
absolutely Sheraton, yet has the type of inlay some- 
times identified in America with Hepplewhite. In 
talking over existing confusions one day with Mr. 
Eberlein he laughingly suggested that we should call 
them “Sherawhite.”’ As Sheraton adopted this type 
of Stretcher from Adam, I might, in the same spirit, 
go Mr. Eberlein “one better” and denominate this 
sideboard as “Sherawhiteadam.” Seriously, however, 
can we allow a but partially adopted practice to over- 


HEPPLEWHITE AND SHERATON 121 


rule an unmistakably corre nomenclature? And if 
this is done how are we rendering honour where honour 
is due? We mutt call this sideboard Sheraton. 

And this holds good of every piece of furniture of 
the contour of the Sheraton sideboard traced in Plate 
66 A—the straight-front with convexly rounded cor- 
ners and straight ends. Though Sheraton borrowed 
many other things, ¢hzs contour (like the extended 
legs) is Sheraton’s own. It appears in numerous de- 
signs in his book exclusively. Indeed the convex is 
his favourite curve, as is shown in the three tracings 
below this sideboard. 

Another example of this contour is given in Plate 
67, and the treatment of this piece in general is also 
Sheraton. 

It should be added that the saying in America 
regarding inlay has become rather current probably 
as a rough-and-ready “help,” but it is so faulty as to 
be positively misleading and its use should not be 
extended. ‘Two of the Sheraton sideboards illustrated 
here (Plates 70 and 71) and some case-pieces, are with- 
out inlay, but they are in the minority. Sheraton ex- 
plained that hollowing the front of sideboards made it 
more convenient for a butler to reach across them: this 
feature will be found in both these examples. 


LEGS 


That the round, fluted leg is in American furniture 
indicative of the style of Sheraton is almo# invariably 
true. I, however, know of a set of twelve shield-back 
chairs, with serpentine front, curved sides, and hol- 
lowed seat—every one of these features shouting of 
Hepplewhite—and they have round, fluted legs. In 
English furniture the round leg is so promiscuously 
used as to be non-committal. 


122 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


The square leg, and especially with spade foot, is 
in seating-furniture and tables most commonly allied 
with Hepplewhite. But here, already, we have an 
exception—do not both the unmistakably Sheraton 
and American chairs in Plate 54 have square legs and 4 
spade feet? And outside of seating-furniture and | 
tables it is no criterion whatever. 

The simple fact is that, in the various legged pieces 
of furniture, Adam, Shearer, Hepplewhite, and Sher- 
aton display about every form of straight leg that 
could be imagined, and that round and square were 
almost indiscriminately used. In Sheraton English 
furniture I should think there is very little numerical 
excess of one over the other. He uses the square leg 
in the sideboard design in Plate 66 A: with the other 
contours, Plate 66 B, the first and the last have round 
legs and the central example square. The four are 
therefore equally divided. We shall soon see the de- 
grees of employment in American case-pieces. 


HANDLES AND DECORATIVE MOTIFS 


It is really amusing to note how little in some re- 
spects the furniture-books of Hepplewhite and Sheraton 
can be relied upon as adequate guides. In practice, in 
America the oval form of handle is most commonly 
associated with Hepplewhite: yet in his book he em- 
ploys the ring handle (not dropped) almost exclusively, 
the one exception being the bail. In running over 
Sheraton’s “Drawing-Book”’ I note one oval and two 
or three with a semi-circular drop: all the rest are ring. 
Yet in English practice the various types were almost 
indiscriminately applied. 

As to ornament. If possession be nine-tenths of 
the law, then certainly, from the books, the ellipse and 
the shell would belong to Sheraton. Hepplewhite 


k : aay 


HEPPLEWHITE AND SHERATON 123 


quite frequently shows the ellipse and in the furniture 
it is equally present, but in both the Sheraton book 
and in practice it is overwhelmingly evident. There 
is but one shell in the whole of Hepplewhite’s “Guide” 
—an inlay on the top of a little dressing-table mirror: 
but in the furniture, and especially American fur- 
niture, it quite often occurs. 

The husk (derived from Adam) should almost as 
convincingly belong to Hepplewhite—it will be seen 
on both his sideboard designs—but on furniture it, 
too, is rather promiscuously apparent. 


We now arrive at the truth that many if not mo 
of the contours, decorative motifs, and details belong to 
Neo-Classic design as a whole, and that the various de- 
signers and their numerous followers, working under 
that wmpulse, used them upon occasion without much 
regard to whether others employed them also. Each might 
have and did have his own general preferences and usages 
without feeling compelled to confine himself to them if the 
spirit moved him otherwise. 


TABLES AND DRESSING-TABLES 


Our way is now smoothed for the consideration of 
other furniture with the same characteristics—and 
very beautiful furniture it is. 

Plate 72 A shows a transition Pembroke table 
Sill largely Chippendale. Grooved or waved legs 
were, however, more common in Hepplewhite pieces 
than in Chippendale, and the block feet here begin to 
take on the spade form. The insides of these legs are 
cut out so that they are generally triangular. There 
is a duplicate of this piece in Independence Hall. 

The next three examples are Hepplewhite card- 


124 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


tables. Plate 74 with the inlaid griffin was almost 
certainly made in the South. 

The Hepplewhite side-table with serpentine front 
(Plate 75) is a particularly charming example, in 
which, as in similar sideboards, the legs are not square 
but follow the curve of the front. 

Plate 76 gives two Sheraton card-tables with the 
legs set out from the frame. The first is used as a 
dressing-table—as is entirely practicable. The second 
has the ellipse as a centre inlay. The panels are of 
satinwood. 

This was an era of the small table and there are 
many attractive examples. Tea-tables and sewing- 
tables were frequent. All have the characteristic 
contours and ornament. 

‘The Mirror-supports in the small dressing-table 
shown in Plate 77 are a trifle clumsy and heavy and 
suggest that it may be a late piece in which those faults 
were Creeping in as an unhappy forerunner of the 
Empire style. Otherwise it is most graceful. 

A superb piece of furniture is the dressing-table 
illustrated in Plate 78. The ringed treatment of the 
upper legs was very much used in New England but 
was also occasionally employed by Duncan Phyfe. 

The slender tripod table with rat’s feet appearing 
in Plate 80 is of these classic years. 

The little “bason stand” at the left in Plate 46 is a 
direct, slightly simplified, rendering of the central 
design in Plate 42 of Sheraton’s “ Drawing-Book.” 
At the other extreme of Plate 46 is an excellent Sher- 
aton chair. 


DESKS, SECRETARIES, CHESTS-OF-DRAWERS, AND CHINA-CLOSETS 


Fundamentally the case-piece is a box on legs or 
feet, more or less ornamented in a manner common to 


SHERATON SIDEBOARD WITH PAW-FEET 
By Courtesy of the late Mary H. Northend 


PENT M72. 


Photograph by Whitenack 
A. TRANSITION TABLE, CHIPPENDALE TO HEPPLEWHITE 


Photograph by Dillon 


B. HEPPLEWHITE INLAID CARD-TABLE 
Both by Courtesy of Howard Reifsnyder, Esq. 


HEPPLEWHITE SEMI-CIRCULAR CARD-TABLE 
Of the general contour of Hepplewhite’s Plate 60 


By Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum 


KS ISNT RE a Se 


a ie 


Photograph by Dillon 


HEPPLEWHITE INLAID CARD-TABLE MADE IN THE SOUTH 
By Courtesy of Howard Reifsnyder, Esq. 


PEATEs 


Photograph by Dillon 


es 


eee aspen ssc ea ac tata Sta trams 


Bi 


HEPPLEWHITE INLAID SIDE-TABLE 
By Courtesy of Howard Reifsnyder, Esq. 


“ ennai 
set eee iptogs coer 


POATE <6 


wnasnyy uviiodosey ay) yo Asa1inoy Ag 
GNVTONd AAN NI FOVW 


“bsq “apdusioy paemoy Asarsnon Ag 
SATAVL-GaV) GIVINI NOLVYAHS 


uoriq Aq ydesSo104g 


goa: 


SHERATON MAHOGANY DRESSING-TABLE 
By Courtesy of the late Mary H. Northend 


PLATE 78 


Rhyme ene RP TEED 


ie me a 


4 


= 
= 
® 


Photograph by Whitenack 
SHERATON DRESSING-TABLE WITH RINGED LEGS, 1800-10 


Mahogany with edges of drawers cross-banded in rosewood 


CLASSIC WALL-BRACKETS FROM THE BURD HOUSE, PHILADELPHIA 
By Courtesy of Howard Reifsnyder, Esq. 


HEPPLEWHITE AND SHERATON 125 


the whole period. It will be realised then how difficult 
it is to differentiate the types of Hepplewhite and 
Sheraton. There was no revolution, no radical change. 
Into the Neo-Classic style of which the Hepplewhite 
firm was then leader came in 1790 a new individuality 
—that of Sheraton, which gradually imposed itself 
upon the movement. From the first we of course find 
examples that are definitely Sheraton, but by the side 
of these are others differing very slightly indeed from 
those of five years before. The new comer did not 
greatly vary the existing decorative motifs, and so in 
conservative cabinet-pieces where a pediment of Sher- 
aton type was not superimposed, where the legs were 
not extended, or other individual features added, we 
can scarcely find more than an indication in one direc- 
tion or the other. 

In such cases there are two opposing tendencies 
that if remembered go far in our aid. It has already 
been mentioned that Hepplewhite retained much more | 
of the curvilinear element of the previous era than did 
Sheraton; that is to say that, as an expert friend ex- 
presses it, he had a love for the shaping of contours. 
Sheraton clung to the rectilinear, but when he indulged 
in curves they were long and graceful. His straight 
lines were likewise long—his tendency was toward the 
tall and narrow, the compressed and the severe; some- 
times almost the tight. And the marvel of it is that no 
furniture has more. of charm than Sheraton’s. 

Let us apply this test. The little desk in Plate 
79 is angular, narrow and high-shouldered. And how 
lovely a piece it is! 

It has no distinguishing features. What might seem 
to be such are soon disposed of, and this will clear the 
way for the future. The tambour-slide is not a char- 
acteristic: it appeared in London in the seventeen- 


126 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


eighties and is common to both schools, though in 
America more frequently appearing in the Sheraton 
pieces. 

The French splay foot (Plates 80 and 81) with or 
without the curved apron between them, is sometimes 
credited to Hepplewhite, probably because his book 
was the earlier. But Shearer shows it also, and, ac- 
cording to date of publication, his book, “The London 
Book of Prices,” was earlier still. In fact and in fur- 
niture it is entirely common to both and to Sheraton 
as well. | 

It will be noted that there are two types of apron— 
also promiscuously used—that which appears here, 
and that illustrated in Plate 85 B. Nor isthe banding 
of the edges of drawers typical; for it appears in both 
Hepplewhite and Sheraton furniture. 

But in this desk (Plate 80) so entirely Sheraton- 
esque in its square-shoulderedness, there are also small 
features belonging to that school—the brass knobs of 
the desk and the dropped rings above the tambour. 

Both the above examples are of New England 
make. The slant-topped desk shown in Plate 81 is of 
Philadelphia and is a piece of much distinction. It 
will be noted that the type of inlay in Plates 79 and 81 
differs very little. For larger surfaces of inlay the 
northern section might employ maple or birch and the 
southern satinwood, but this was not invariable. 

High chests and highboys were by now definitely 
abandoned in favour of low chests-of-drawers. In the 
Hepplewhite example illustrated in Plate 82 we see 
the “shaping” referred to—not only in the serpentine 
front but in the apron and in the tipping outward of 
the feet. ‘There is a flowing quality in the whole 
appearance of the piece. In other examples it will be 
betrayed in a different manner, for these last two 


HEPPLEWHITE AND SHERATON 127 


features are confined to furniture found in the neigh- 
bourhood of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and so are 
local. In the card-tables Plates 72 B and 74, side- 
table Plate 75, and the sideboard Plate 63, this quality 
of “shaping”’ will be noted. In the latter two the legs 
are not square but follow the curve of the top both on 
their fronts and backs. Hepplewhite chair-backs are 
wholly curvilinear and his sofas almost always show 
the rounded or the camel-back. 

The more usual type of Hepplewhite chest-of- 
drawers was the serpentine form with but slight 
chamfers and with straight bracket feet; thus securing 
a much narrower corner and lighter and more refined 
effect than the early Chippendale chest by Gostelowe 
illustrated in Plate 42. . 

The simple but very pretty bow-front Sheraton 
chests-of-drawers used to be frequent in antique shops 
but now are much less so—most of them have evidently 
disappeared into private ownership. | 

Recently seen in the window of a Philadelphia 
antique-shop was an attractive Sheraton chest-of- 
drawers, flat-fronted, with reeded stiles at the sides, 
and slender turned legs. The drawers were panelled 
in the triple arrangement characteristic of the Ports- 
mouth, N. H. pieces above mentioned, the central 
panel being the narrower and of maple while the side 
panels were of mahogany—see Plate 82 A. Being at 
once curious whether this mode had extended to Penn- 
sylvania, I stepped inside and asked the proprietor 
if he knew the history of the piece. His answer was: 
“Tt came from New England.” ‘To that section there- 
fore this individuality evidently belongs. 

In Plates 83 and 85 B we see two secretary-book- 
cases without inlay and with typical Sheraton pedi- 
ments. The second, with pointed-arch (‘‘Gothic’’) 


128 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


doors is in New England and was probably made there: 
the first with round arches was found in Camden, New 
Jersey, and was made in Philadelphia or its neighbour- 
hood. ‘This feature of the four arches disposed in this 
manner would seem to be American, as I have not 
noted it elsewhere. | | 

Plate 83 shows the desk at which I am now writing, 
and, because of its unusual lowness, when I acquired 
it some years ago I promptly christened it “the dump- 
ling.” Its total height is but 5 ft., 214 in., and its 
breadth 3 ft., 124 in. All the five outside drawers are 
of beautifully grained mahogany veneer, and these 
drawers are slightly rounded outward towards their 
centres and are cock-beaded. Inside the doors are 
three additional small drawers and a single shelf for 
books. 

First among the larger pieces, because of its ex- 
tensive travel, is mentioned the secretary-bookcase in 
Plate 84 with its Salem, Massachusetts, label, now in 
South Africa; reproduced through the kindness of 
Mr. C. Reginald Grundy, Editor of the invaluable 
London Connoisseur. “Through what vicissitudes it 
has passed may never now be known”’ but it has been 
there “for many years.” The brass finials are missing, 
but it retains much of its original glass. I am particu- 
larly happy in giving this illustration in that, so far as 
I am aware, it adds one more name to our list of known 
American craftsmen. The extensive employment of 
the ellipse I have mentioned as so frequent in Sheraton 
work is’ certainly evident here—in the tracery as well 
as the base. Another type of Sheraton pediment is 
seen in this piece. 


A secretary-bookcase recently illustrated in The 


Antiquarian by courtesy of Mr. I. Sack and exceed- 
ingly close to the above example bears the label of 


sapere rata 


Rss 


pens tt ee REEL 


Photograph by Whitenack 


SHERATON NEW ENGLAND DESK (C. 1800) AND SHERATON CHAIR 
By Courtesy Howard Reifsnyder, Esq. 


PLATE Se 


fc 


SHERATON NEW ENGLAND TAMBOUR DESK (C. 1810) AND RAT-FOOT TABLE 
Hopkins House, Boston 
By Courtesy of the late Mary H. Northend 


PLATE 8&1 


Photograph by Dillon 


SHERATON LIGHT MAHOGANY INLAID DESK, C. 1800 
Made in Philadelphia 
By Courtesy of Howard Reifsnyder, Esq. 


PLATE.82 


A. HEPPLEWHITE MAPLE AND MAHOGANY CHEST-OF-DRAWERS, PORTSMOUTH, N. H. 
By Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum 


B. DESK OF MOUNTAIN CHERRY 
Made in Philadelphia 
By Courtesy of Howard Reifsnyder, Esq. 
Photograph by Dillon 


PLATE 83 


SHERATON MAHOGANY SECRETARY-BOOKCASE; C. 1800 
Made in the Philadelphia neighbourhood 
Property of the Author 


PLATE 84 


A SALEM SECRETARY-BOOKCASE IN SOUTH AFRICA WITH ITS LABEL 
The Property of W. R. Morrison, Esq., Cape Town 
By Courtesy of The Connoisseur, London 


PLATE 85 


SU 


—* 


i00,0;010]09;850.00.7 
es — 


GS 


one 


om 


Poche equa 


B. SHERATON SECRETARY-BOOKCASE WITH GOTHIC-ARCHED DOORS, C. 1800 
In the possession of Walter C. Harris, Esq., Salem, Mass. 
By Courtesy of the late Mary H. Northend 


PLATE 86 


SHERATON TAMBOUR SECRETARY-BOOKCASE, C. 1800 


Made in Massachusetts 


yon, Inc., New York City 


esy of Charles Woolsey L 


7 


By Court 


HEPPLEWHITE AND SHERATON 129 


Edmund Johnson, also of Salem; so that the type was 
evidently there a favourite one. In this piece the tracery 
of the doors is rectangular and diagonal and, as was 
frequent, divides the glazing into thirteen sections typ- 
ical of the number of the American states. The Amer- 
ican eagle, furthermore, perches upon its pediment. 

Two superb Sheraton secretary-bookcases are illus- 
trated in Plates 86 and 87. The first, in light mahogany, 
inlaid, has the flap-desk with pulls and came from 
Massachusetts. Plate 87, of rather darker mahogany, 
has the quadrant form of desk and is from the Phila- 
delphia neighbourhood. 

It is by no means always easy to be sure of the 
locality in which a certain piece of American furniture 
was made. The collector of course buys from many 
sources; the dealer may not always be successful in 
tracing the history of his purchase and for information 
he is more or less at the mercy of his informant, though 
his experience and in some cases his expert knowledge 
of the cabinet-making methods of the different sections 
nevertheless stands him in good stead and enables 
him to check up. We must also remember the frequent 
migration of families. When a piece has remained in 
one location through a number of generations there is 
a fair presumption that this is its origin. 

The making of such beautiful furniture as in Plate 
87, found in the Philadelphia neighbourhood, usually 
lies between some one of the notable Philadelphia 
craftsmen and men of not distant locale such as William 
Eckerson of New Brunswick, New Jersey, who did 
similarly excellent work. William Kerwood of Trenton 
was another fine cabinet-maker. 

Though Sheraton sometimes employed flowing 
designs in his tracery for doors, and also the ellipse 
type noted in Plate 84, his preference was in accord 


FO eS Pe ce re oe 
re aan a Mal he ay 


130 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


with his retangular and diagonal tendency in general. 
This is seen in both Plates 86 and 87. Plate 86 again 
shows the brass knobs. vei 

The lower tambour slide in this secretary is set 
back so as to be out of the way of the knees of one 
using it for writing purposes: it will be observed that 
the curves of the recession in the sideboard in Plate 67 
are the same as here. | 


Though there is no extant testimony to that effect, 
I have always felt it to be most probable that Sheraton 
throughout his career was designing furniture for 
cabinet-makers: certain ‘it is that we frequently en- — 
counter English furniture not appearing in his books 
and which yet is so characteristic of his design that 
we do not see how it could’ have emanated from any 
other hand. Another indication is that all the way 
through the seventeen-nineties we find the type of 
pediment-seen in Plates 85 B—87 employed perhaps in 
England: and certainly. in America more than any 
other, and yet there is not a trace’ of it in Sheraton’s 
“Drawing-Book.” But when in 1803 the “Cabinet 
Dictionary’? appeared there he gives a development of 
the type:(Plate 85 A), thus sealing it as his own. 

The fine china-closet shown in Plate 88 is not very 
definitely of either school and it will be interesting to 
follow this out as an example. wn 

In contour and proportion it is very much like 
some English Hepplewhite pieces but lacks just the 
frieze decoration that stamps these ‘pieces as Hepple- 
white—alternate fluting and paterae originally derived 
from Adam and much used‘ by Hepplewhite, especially 
in his earlier years. It also resembles some Sheraton 
cabinet-pieces but they are taller and narrower than 
the present example. 


PLATE 87 


Photograph by Whitenack 
SHERATON SECRETARY-BOOKCASE IN INLAID MAHOGANY, C. 1800 
MADE IN THE PHILADELPHIA NEIGHBOURHOOD 
By Courtesy of Howard Reifsnyder, Esq., Philadelphia 


PLATE 88 


NEO-CLASSIC CHINA-CLOSET IN LIGHT MAHOGANY, INLAID 
By Coartesy of Charles Woolsey Lyon, Inc., New York City 


a depen 


SHERATON BEDSTEAD AT UPSALA, GERMANTOWN, PHILADELPHIA 


PLATE so 


puayiJon “H Asep aie] ay? jo Asaainoy Ag 
SLLUSNHOVSSVW ‘NOLTINVH ‘YOLIOYd SAWVE ‘SUW JO ANOH AHL NI Gad-CTaId NOLVYAHS 


feepibchinaii 
ee ee ET ti oe Wen 


~ oe = = 2 
snlereephtierrexce oe es Bue sia ay a ea ca 


SSN denon oes 


HEPPLEWHITE AND SHERATON 131 


The topping of much Hepplewhite furniture is 
very plain, consisting merely of a few lines of moulding 
with or without a fine dentil and pear-drops surmount- 
ing a frieze. The Sheraton style continued this, made 
a greater use of dentil and drop, and even still further 
simplified the mouldings. In this respect the china- 
closet is of the Sheraton type. 

The type of inlay in the cornice was employed by 
Hepplewhite and continued by Sheraton. 

Door-tracery was more apt to be of this rectilinear 
and diagonal character under Sheraton than under 
Hepplewhite but is seen in the work of both schools. 

Legs do not differentiate in cabinet-work, and I 
have come to believe that the canting outward of 
square legs in American furniture means as little. 

_ The handles here used were common to both schools. 

So why should we name this piece, or others of like 
character—beauty does not always require a label! 


BEDSTEADS 


Most bedgteads during these years did not very 
definitely follow English examples, but they lean to- 
ward the Sheraton rather than the Hepplewhite type. 
Two fine examples are given here—Plate 89 at historic 
Upsala, Germantown, Philadelphia, and Plate 90 in 
Massachusetts. 


Special attention is drawn to the illustrations of 
this chapter, as these carefully selected, chaste, and 
dignified pieces are representative of some of the 
finest furniture made in America. Many of them also 
considerably differ from contemporary English pieces, 
and the ability of our craftsmen is attested not only 
by fine design and workmanship but by the wse of these 
classic styles as their own metier without a slavish 


7. Mh, toy! Aaya he TOS ng eho 3 ek, was He as ee pie a. 
7 7 ay ih cA dabiy sh, SI etd ravi ee 
ii A Fa Lins OPA hs Wek ¢ 


| 


aS Sattar ee ee 


copying of models. Little furniture ornamented b 
combined painting and inlay was attempted here, but — 
some fine pieces were made by Robert Fisher of 
Baltimore. 3 Peri 
Our furniture does not of course compare in elabor. 
tion of beauty with the exceedingly decorative Englis 
pieces constructed for extensive and formal establis| 
ments, but they are in every way equal to the rema 
ing furniture of that country and often surpass it 
quality of workmanship. During the Sheraton peric 
in England, and especially toward the close of tl 
century, there was much irregularity in this respect. 


i ee 


THE AMERICAN DIRECTOIRE STYLE 


PARTICULARLY acute case of suffering from 
bad company is that of the Diredfoire style. 

This association will presently be apparent, but 
the result of it has been that, save to the work of 
Duncan Phyfe, little attention or appreciation has been 
accorded the delightful furniture and decoration of the 
American or English Direcfoire styles. Even the latest 
English books covering these years illustrate but a few 
pieces of the furniture of Dzrecfoire inspiration, and 
the renowned Victoria and Albert Museum as yet 
possesses but a comparatively small selection. Most 
of it remains unknown in private houses, though some 
passes through the hands of dealers. In America*much 
of the furniture is similarly neglected. It is quite time 
that we changed all this. 

The cause is evident: the French DireGoire style, 
upon which the characteristic features of the furniture 
and decoration of both countries at this period were 
based, was formerly submerged as merely the beginning 
of the Empire style, and so was included in the em- 
phatic and general condemnation meted out to the 
pomposities of the first Napoleon. It was indeed a 
transition style, but one that had a powerful effect on 
the decoration and furniture of all Europe and America. 
At its appearance it was avidly seized upon, so that we 
speedily find an Italian, a Spanish, an English, and an 
American Direfoire derivation, and in each case with 
the happiest results. 

The term Direoire is conversationally employed 
to cover the years from the overthrow of the monarchy 
of Louis XVI till the establishment of the Empire in 

133 


134 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


1804, thus including the Revolutionary period, before, 
and the Consulate after the Directorate but before the 
Empire. 

We must recognize two trends in this new French 
mode. One was the simplification of the beautiful but 
ornate classic style of Louis Seize to accord with the 
ideals of the new Republic—a simplification carried 
out entirely in accord with French tradition. To these 
pieces should be added furniture derived, it is true, 
from classic models, or suggested by them, but handled 
with the deftness and lightness of the Gallic manner. 
Together these comprise a very considerable portion 
of the product of the period, but also leave another 
considerable portion decidedly to be reckoned with— 
that composed of heavy and often awkward furniture 
resulting from the growing mania of copying for modern 
use anything and everything from antiquity—Egyptian 
and Etruscan, Greek and Roman—which mania cul- 
minated in the grandiose productions of Napoleon’s 
Empire, jarring and clashing with everything hitherto 
known in France. The first trend was almost wholly 
fine in its results; those of the last were what we may 
always expect from the logical carrying to its con- 
clusion of a thoroughly illogical project. 

And so we see that not only has this first, simplified, 
historic, and truly Gallic phase suffered from being con- 
fused with the Empire style, but that it was beset with 
a foe of its own household. Indeed the black sheep of 
alien tendency was the prolific member of the family, 
in that it gave birth to the full Empire style, while the 
legitimately French mode died “without heirs.” And 
with it died the glory of Gallic mobiliary art. 

While, later, we had in America an abundance— 
yes, a superabundance—of this French Empire in- 
fluence, and while the Diredoire and Empire styles— 


AMERICAN DIRECTOIRE 135 


as have styles in all times and in all places—merged 
the one into the other, it so happened that there was 
a period here in which furniture in all its purity of 
historic type was made not only in New York by 
Duncan Phyfe, but in Philadelphia, the South, and 
New England. 


A LEGITIMATE DIVORCE 


For the first time, then, that this has been done, I 
have separated this American furniture from its un- 
desirable companionship; and a study of the illustra- 
tions will quickly make it evident that given its own 
just opportunity this Diredoire type triumphantly 
emerges as at once one of the simplest, most elegant, 
and loveliest of styles. 

This I believe to be in itself a quite sufficient. justi- © 
fication for the step I have taken, but if further reason 
be necessary it can quickly be adduced. In every 
book—English and American—touching upon the sub- 
jet, with which I am acquainted, obloquy is heaped 
upon the head of Sheraton for following the French 
Empire style to the “utter ruin”’ of his furniture design. 
That in his last days of misery and penury he did do 
extremely bad things—and was probably forced so to 
do by the trend of the times, to keep himself alive—is 
undeniable; but on the other hand, has there been dis- 
crimination shown, and is he given credit for the 
entirely delightful pieces bearing his characteristics 
that were created under the influence of this historic 
phase of French Diredfoire art! 

And will the reader, for a moment, turn to Plate 
gs A and note the perfect grace and proportion of that 
American chair directly derived from French Direcfoire 
examples. Now regarding one of the English chairs 
of this same contour what said the late, noted, Percy 


ee cen Bee es Be 

*. SS es Oe 
Sea) ie ch wt 
. ees. 


136 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


Macquoid, who in general showed himself so fully 
appreciative of beauty in furniture? He refers to the 
“gap in taste’ between this type and the chairs of 
twenty years earlier as showing “so great a difference 
from all tradition of what was beautiful, that the 
mystery of this sudden change cannot be explained.” 

If association and prejudice could so blind such a 
man as Mr. Macquoid is it not quite time that we did 
away with both association and prejudice! 


THE DIRECTOIRE STYLE IN FRANCE 


Unnoticed beginnings eventuating in a new mode 
are naturally always at work before the Style itself 
has sufficiently developed to become recognized. So 
in the last days of Louis Seize we already see some 
considerable simplification of the mode of that reign 
in response to the growing Republican tendency of the 
times and the decided drift toward a more literal 
classicism. Jacques Louis David, a tremendous classi- 
cist of the most rigid description and of the widest 
influence in all affairs of art, made painter to the King 
in 1783, was nine years later—in 1792—elected to the 
Convention, ordered the furniture for it, and was 
“chief manager of the great national festivals and 
spectacles of the Republic.” Later he was patronised 
by Napoleon, who appointed him his chief painter. It 
was David who presented to Napoleon Percier and 
Fontaine, “the creators of the official Empire style.” 

One of the world-famous paintings is David’s 
portrait of Mme. Recamier in which she is seated upon 
a Grecian sofa of his own design. As early as 1790 
there existed in his studio furniture “faithfully imitated 
from the antique” designed by him and executed by 
Georges Jacob, the founder of the celebrated dynasty 


AMERICAN DIRECTOIRE 137 


—Georges himself 1765-97, his sons Jacob fréres 1797 
to October 1803, and the surviving son Francis- 
Honoré, under the title Jacob-Desmalter & Cie, till 
1825; the firm continuing in the family till 1847. Each 
firm stamped the frames of its furniture with a separ- 
ate mark, but, as we shall have need hereafter to 
remember in my tracing of the sources of American 
furniture, we cannot always work these matters out 
chronologically, for we have not before us everything 
they made; and, as is well known in France, the later 
firms continued to make furniture that had originally 
appeared under Georges the elder, as well as their own 
designs. A chair made, therefore, by Jacob fréres may 
have been originated by the founder of the family 
fortunes some few years earlier. They made much other 
fine furniture, but their great specialties were chairs 
and sofas. 

There were other designers, Dugourc especially, 
working in the antique or near-antique vein, but the . 
disturbances of the times prevented the actual rendering 
of many such designs until the Consulate and Empire 
years. 

The Revolution actually began with the sitting of 
the National Assembly in May 1789, but was not com- 
pleted till the forming of the Convention and the proc- 
lamation of the Republic in September, 1792. The 
guilds were then suppressed, production discouraged, 
and comparatively little was again made till the estab- 
lishment of the Directorate in 1795. Under that 
régime and the Consulate, end of 1799, all work was 
again encouraged, expositions were held, and a museum 
of applied art announced. Napoleon, as consul for 
life, in 1802, orders gilded woods as in royal times. On 
May 18, 1804 he became Emperor. 


138 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


THE FURNITURE 
AMERICAN CHAIRS OF FRENCH INSPIRATION 


That many of our furniture-styles at this period 
derived from France is a matter of common informa- 
tion: the question has been how they did so—how our 
craftsmen arrived at sufficient knowledge for working 
purposes: for probably very little of the French fur- 
niture was brought over, and in any event it would 
seldom be at their disposal. Yet the use of those styles 
here was geographically widespread. 

Considering the results presently to be shown, it 
would seem almost certain that our workmen availed 
themselves of the following source: 

Throughout this and succeeding periods were pub- 
lished in Paris fine illustrated magazines—Journal des 
Dames et des Modes and Journal de la Mode et du Gout 
—now regarded in France as indispensable to a study 
of these styles, though “certain of these models were 


used, others quickly forgotten.” These magazines 


contained illustrations not only of costumes, of car- 
riages—and how the parvenues did love those carriages! 
—but of wall-papers, of furniture, of textiles, and the 
like. 

A colleétion of the furniture plates was issued, prob- 
ably not a great many years ago, in Paris, in an un- 
dated handsome quarto volume entitled “Meubles et 


Objets de Goat, 1796-1830,” and from this I have ~ 


made tracings of several chairs, by permission of 
William Helburn, Inc., New York. We shall soon see 
how these styles were used in American work. 

As these magazines contained hundreds of illustra- 
tions, it is possible that our skilled workmen may have 
found in them sufficient information for their needs; 
but, in tracing back the various contours and decor- 


AMERICAN DIRECTOIRE 139 


ative motifs, it appears equally indisputable to me 
that they availed themselves of the modes of the 
Jacobs, and this is a problem decidedly more puzzling. 
For our own use to-day illustrations of a large body of 
the work of the three firms are accessible in the handy 
little portfolios credited under my tracings, again by 
permission of Mr. Helburn, but, so far as I have been 
able to learn, none existed at the period itself; and so 
it is difficult to see how Americans could have become 
intimately acquainted with their product unless they 
secured patterns direct. We know that David’s 
designs were widely copied in France and _ possibly 
Jacob’s were also and were illustrated in some source 
as yet unknown to us; but however the models were 
secured the reader will find it extremely interesting to 
trace these origins of our delightful workmanship. 


As early as the last years of Louis Seize there were 
beautiful sofas (Lits de Repos) with all the wealth of 
decoration of that ornate style but with roll-over arms 
(see Plate 92 A) and this roll, extending itself to chair- 
backs, was one of the prominent features of the style 
and will be seen in many of the illustrations of Ameri- 
can chairs here. Another mode, also widely adopted, 
was the extension of the upper back-rail of chairs 
beyond the stiles, as is shown in figure 2, Plate 91, 
though our chair-backs never had so deep a curve— 
see Plates 93 and ror. There was ‘also the horn-back 
a close approximation to which will be seen in Plate 102. 

Let us look again at the series of four tracings at 
the top of Plate 91. It will be noted that in figure 1 
the back is hollowed not only inward but downward— 
and so are most of the Phyfe chairs, and those in 
Plate 100. Phyfe also used the hollowed cross-bars 
with rosette, shown in figure 3, and the diamond-back 


140 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


(but without the cross-bar) of figure 4. Another of his 
forms—though there was not room here to illustrate 
this and some of the above—was the horseshoe seat. 
This, too, appeared before the death of Louis Seize and 
is seen in the little later Revolutionary chair in Plate 
92 B and in the American decorated chair to the left in 
Plate 100. Just below it (Plate 92 C) is a simplified 
leg finishing in the spiral twist, appearing to some 
extent in French, English, and American Direfoire 
furniture, but which played such a prominent rdle in 
our Empire period. 

The rosette or “button” seen at the front sides of 
many Phyfe chairs (including Plate 98 B) derived from 
such French examples as that shown in Plate 91, 
figure 6. | 

Very probably the diagonal back-straps with rosettes 
in the chair just referred to (Plate 92 B) will seem 
familiar: they should do so, for they were taken up by 
Sheraton in England and in America as well in such ex- 
amples as Plate 93, which also shows the extended 
back-rail. 

This same French chair (Plate 92 B), and that in 
Plate 94 A, shows the simplified, round, turned leg 
that now took the place of the ornamental fluted leg 
of the monarchy. In the normal style of Louis Seize 
all four legs were always straight, but in the late years, 
when the cry everywhere was “back to antiquity,” the 
back legs were flared outward, the front ones remaining 
Straight, as in these two chairs. This construction also 
extensively appears in American examples. 

But soon the front legs also were flared in the same 
manner, and we have the form shown in Plate 91, 
figures 5 and 6. The tie-rods beneath the seat in this 
first French example were of brass, and it is rather a 


PLATE o1 


Directoire 1796-99  Consulat 1800-02 Consulat 1800-02 


5 6 
A. FRENCH CHAIRS. THE INSPIRATION OF ENGLISH AND AMERICAN EXAMPLES 
From ‘‘Meubles et Objets de Goit’’ by permission Wm. Helburn, Inc., New York 


7 8 
Arthur Edwards, London Victoria and Albert Museum, London 
B. ENGLISH CHAIRS OF DIRECTOIRE TYPE 


PLAT Ea o 


A. Louis XVI Lit de Repos B. Chair of French Revolutionary Period 
already showing rolled top with back adopted in Sheraton furniture 


C. Louis XVI chair-leg with spiral finish 


All made by G. Jacobs 
From ‘‘Les Siegés de Georges Jacobs” 
By permission of William Helburn, Inc., New York 


PLATE 93 


“LATE SHERATON” ARM CHAIR WITH DIRECTOIRE BACK 
Made in Philadelphia 
From the Cadwalader house 
By Courtesy of Estate of James Curran 


Note Plate 92 B 


PLATE 94 


A. French Directoire chair with simplified straight 
front legs 


Covered in contemporary silk 


B G 
French Directoire chairs with curves from which the type developed shown in Plate 95 A, 96, and 98 


All made by and stamped Jacob Fréres 
From “‘Les Siegés de Jacob Freéres"’ 
By permission of William Helburn, Inc., New York 


A. NEW YORK DIRECTOIRE CHAIR WITH AMERICAN EAGLE B. DUNCAN PHYFE CURULE CHAIR WITH FRENCH BACK 
Loaned to the Metropolitan Museum by R. T. H. Halsey, Esq. By Courtesy of R. T. Haines Halsey, Esq. 


PLATE 96 


“bsg ‘Aasjepy saureyy “L,Y 
fq wnasny uvijodonay 242 0} pauvoy 
YIVHD WUV dtiAHd NYONNC 4 


ausoddo y 46 aleig aag 


puayJoN “H Ase aiv; ay3 jo Asaamnog Ag 
SWUVA ATYAARE 
aSQNOH NOSNHOl ‘1 ‘d LV YVHD WUY adAHd ‘V 


Debenham & Freebody Wm. Whiteley, Lrd. B. From Sheraton’s ‘‘Cabinet- 
A. English “Late Sheraton’ chairs Dictionary,’’ 1803 


See Duncan Phyfe chairs, Plate 96 


C. French Revolutionary Fauteuil stamped G. Jacob. See Plate 99 
From *‘Les Siegés de Georges Jacob” 
By permission of Wm. Helburn, Inc., New York 


PLATE 98 


wnasny uritjodonayy aq? 03 “bsg ‘Aasjepy saurepy “yl “y Aq pauzoT 
AdAL FUIOLIVUId AO SUIVHD ACIS d4AHd NVONNG 


SSeeeces 
SOSSé bese o 
Sees ecce 
88eeesece 


?@ he 
Fett 4 
ge 


AMERICAN DIRECTOIRE 141 


pity that so unusual and attractive a feature was not 
taken up here. 

We now reach the development adopted more 
largely in America than any other, and which ex- 
tended into the Empire period both in France and in 
this country. I think, too, that I have discovered 
how this development came about. If the reader will 
refer to Plate 94 B he will see how the back-support 
began to extend forward, encroaching upon the seat- 
rail; in the next figure the seat-rail is hollowed under 
and the legs concave and then flare outward. If we 
join those two features we have the graceful series of 
curves forming the front of the chair in Plate 95 A (an 
American chair copied from French examples) sweep- 
ing down in the front from the volute at the top into 
the seat-rail and then inward and down the concave 
front leg. And this construction as naturally eventu- 
ates in the lovely serpentine line in the back, again 
from the volute to the foot of the back leg. Both of 
these graceful series of curves came into the furniture ~ 
world for the first time with this French Revolution- 
Diredoire style. 

The completed contour is important to us because 
of its frequent use in this and the following period 
here. Sheraton adopted and shows it, in October, 
1803, in his “Cabinet Dictionary”? Appendix Plate 
No. 4, elaborating it with heads and ornament above 
the legs and adding paw-feet. The English chair in 
the Victoria and Albert Museum, Plate g1, figure 8, 
here, is of the “Trafalgar’’ period—1805. 

Whenever the strictly Classic influence seizes upon 
humanity we shall see the ancient curule chair occurring 
as one of its early manifestations. It was so in the 
Renaissance period, and in the French volume previ- 
ously referred to several examples of stools and chairs 


142 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


appear in the Consulate section. It was promptly 
adopted by Thomas Sheraton and appears in his 
“Cabinet Dictionary” of 1803. The back of Duncan 
Phyfe’s curule chair, Plate 95 B, is French throughout. 
Its top-rail is hollowed downward as well as inward, 
and its double-hoop joined by a rosette is straight 
DireGotre. ; 

A remarkably satisfactory adoption of French 
forms will be seen in the pair of decorated chairs illus- 
trated in Plate 100. Besides other features which will 
now be recognised, is the finishing of the legs with the 
bamboo ringing and the bulging front stretchers seen 
in so much French Provincial furniture. Pointing 
downward in the upper legs of the chair to the right 
is the little “palmette,” and the painted ornament of 
both chairs is of Dire4oire character. Such seating- 
furniture as this would be charming for the bedroom 
or the breakfast-room. Those in Plate 1o1 are of 
generally similar character but are of mahogany. 

As will be seen by referring to the Phyfe chairs, 
here, two of his favourite decorative motifs were reed- 
ing—which in all his furniture he indulged in almost 
to excess—and a leaf which is not the flowing acanthus 
of Chippendale or Sheraton but which is more akin to 
the water-leaf. He employed a dog’s foot on some of 
his curved-leg chairs. The round, reeded, leg was also 
used in his Sheraton pieces. The lyre (Plate 98 B) was 
a motif much in evidence in all countries during the 
classic movement, beginning with the Louis XVI style 
in France and Robert Adam in England. 


ENGLISH BORROWINGS AND TRANSMITTALS 


But England had been the source of our previous 
American styles: does that source now abruptly cease 
to be our inspiration, or does it partially continue its 


AMERICAN DIRECTOIRE 143 


influence? And if the latter be true, to what degree 
does its furniture differ from the French? 

It is perhaps not generally realised that about the 
middle of the eighteenth century French was the 
language of the court of England and that in manners 
as well as in costume the effect of Parisian fashion was 
enormous, extending through the latter half of the 
century and the beginning of the nineteenth. The 
English furniture of the period is usually denominated 
“late Sheraton” or “late Georgian,” and while, natur- 
ally, many features of Sheraton’s early style continued, 
that style was almost metamorphosed by this new 
French influence. As early as January, 1793, Sheraton 
publishes a plate of “A Dining Parlour in imitation of 
the Prince of Wales’s”’ and in describing that of the 
Prince says: “The chairs are of mahogany, made in the 
Style of the French, with broad top-rails hanging over 
each back foot”’ (as in the second French chair in the 
series of four tracings); “the legs are turned, and the 
seats covered with red leather. I could not shew the 
curtains of each window without confusion, but they 
are of the French kind.” From then onward the 
various features of the Diredoire and Empire styles 
were quickly adopted in England as they made their 
appearance. There were always adaptations as well 
as adoptions, and especially in one direction. For once 
London was more luxurious than Paris: the ideal of 
Spartan republican simplicity had seized upon France, 
while England held to all the luxury and comfort of its 
pleasure-loving eighteenth century. So we find in 
some pieces of the Consulate style in France a rigidity 
that provoked from Roederer in 1802 the expression: 
“T wish furniture made for me: I do not wish to remake 
myself for my furniture.” A rigidity as regards colour 
was also setting in, and as in England a “full palette” 


144 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


was employed, the difference in this respect, though 
not in style, was more marked in the field of decora- 
tion than it was in furniture. 

The difficulty in determining to what degree Ameri- 
can Diredtoire furniture owes its inspiration directly 
to France and how much to France by way of England 
will now be realised. It is a very interesting point, 
from its bearing on sociology as well as on furniture 
and decoration. 

For the showing of English precedents for our own 
product, we to a large extent must look to actual 
English furniture of the period rather than to books; 
for the purer French Direoire Style there adopted 
falls, in date, between Sheraton’s two valuable volumes : 
and there were none others covering just this phase. 

Though the last edition of his “Drawing Book” was 
published in 1802, no plates there appear dated later 
than 1794. This was rather early for many features 
of the new mode to be taken up, engraved, and pub- 
lished by Sheraton, and hence in this volume we do 
not find a great deal in that vein. 

Then in 1803 arrived that chunky little octavo, his 
“Cabinet Dictionary,” embracing the latest Styles in 
over eighty plates. It is of great aid, but does not 
show certain types found in existing English furniture 
and copied in America. 

With few exceptions the case-pieces illustrated in 
this volume are in Sheraton’s own mode, some a little, 
others not at all affected by the French movement. 
Seating-furniture and tables tell us another Story. A 
“Grecian Squab” (sofa), of which a tracing appears 
later here, is a fine piece of work. So also are many of 
the tables. We have the DireGoire form of chair with 
Straight simplified front legs and flared back legs in ~ 
the tracing in Plate 97 B. The roll-back and leg 


AMERICAN DIRECTOIRE 145 


flared front and back appear in the very beginning— 
his Plate 2, dated September, 1802. Two bergeres are 
quite good and there are charming small tables and 
sofa-tables. Besides these we have sprawling contours, 
awkward curves, and broken legged griffins—or some 
other indeterminate species of beast—equal to the 
worst phase of the French Consulate. A “conversation- 
chair” (his Plate 29) is about as disorganised a piece 
of “design” as had till then been perpetrated upon 
British soil. 

And so we find this book to be a strange compound 
of good and bad; with fine persistence of his own 
qualities, excellent adoption in some pieces, and in 
others a wholehearted taking over of wretched design, 
apparently without even a qualm. 

I find very little here or in Thomas Hope’s book of 
1807 that was diredily adopted by our craftsmen during 
our Diredfotre period. 

Ackermann’s Repository, a monthly illustrated mag- 
azine of modes, furniture, and the like, published in 
London, has been mentioned as of much aid to our 
workmen, and it no doubt was so when the Empire 
Style was adopted. Its publication did not begin 
early enough, however, to be of much value as a guide 
to Diredfoire modes. The volume of 1809, for instance, 
shows a chair of Diredfoire form but with an elaborate 
Empire back-ornament. 

It would have been interesting to illustrate here 
more actual English furniture, but due limits confined 
me to a few chairs, sofas, and tables. Plate 91, figures 
7 and 8, shows two side chairs. Phyfe’s chair-forms 
are usually French, but a glance at the two English 
chairs in Plate 97 A and Phyfe’s arm-chairs in Plate 96 
leave us in little doubt as to his immediate inspiration 
in these cases. Particularly lovely are the two Phila- 


146 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


delphia late Sheraton arm-chairs with low backs in 
Plate 99. The French Revolutionary chair in Plate 
97 C shows their ultimate source, but the two are not 
especially close and there was probably an tgs. 
intermediary. 

Most of us are familiar with the low: betiient late 
Sheraton chairs, of which there were a number of 
variations, but a decidedly unusual pair appears in 
Plate 102. As mentioned in the previous chapter, 
either Sheraton must have designed much furniture 
that does not appear in his books or his followers did 
it for him, for there are many varieties of these chairs 
in England and a number of derivations here. For the 
most part they combine features both French and 
English. | 
SOFAS 


Three principal types of Diredoire sofa appeared 


in America. The first of these originated in the last 
years of Louis Seize. It-is exemplified by the /zt de 
repos made by the elder Georges Jacob and stamped 
with his name (Plate 103 A) and by the altogether 
beautiful example of Mr. Reifsnyder’s in Plate 104, 
made in Philadelphia but which would do credit to 
Paris itself. Then there was the “Grecian bed,” of 
which in 1790 Talma the popular young French 
tragedian had the only specimen in Paris, but which 
soon found its way to popularity. Sheraton of course 
adopted it, and it is shown in Plate 109 A as traced from 
his “Cabinet Dictionary.” An American example, 
made in the South, appears in Plate 105. 

And finally we have the roll-arm sofa, exemplified 
here in Plate 106. This is by Phyfe of New York. 
These three locations, alone, show the extent to which 
the Direoire Style penetrated in this country, and 
there are also other specimens made in New England. 


PLATE 99 


Photograph by Dillon 


“‘LATE SHERATON" LOW-BACK ARM CHAIRS OF DIRECTOIRE TYPE, MADE IN PHILADELPHIA 
Note legs as well as back 


By Courtesy of Howard Reifsnyder, Esq., Philadelphia 


PLATE 100 


DECORATED CHAIRS WITH FINE ADAPTATION OF FRENCH FEATURES 
EMPIRE LAMP 


By Courtesy of Estate of James Curran, Philadelphia 


PLATE? tor 


AMERICAN DIRECTOIRE MAHOGANY CHAIRS AND TABLE 


PLATE“ r02 


erydjapejryg ‘0D uewaieg *D “4 “Vy jo Asaqsnop Ag 
SLYOddNS GNA HLIA AIAVL GNV SYIVHO ..NOLVUYSHS ALY. 


PLATE 102 


A. LOUIS XVI LIT DE REPOS MADE BY AND STAMPED G. JACOB, FLARE-ARM TYPE 
By Courtesy of Edouard Jonas, Paris and New York 


B. ENGLISH DIRECTOIRE SOFA, SCROLL-END TYPE 
By Courtesy of Frederick Treasure, Preston, England, and New York 


PLATE 164 


erydyjaprityd ‘“bsq ‘sapAusyiay pseasropy jo Asaqsmozp Ag 
VIHdTAGVTIHd NI AGVW “aAdAL WUV-dUV TA JO VAOS FUIOLIZYIG NVIIYAWV 


uoyiq 4q ydessoi0y4g 


AMERICAN DIRECTOIRE GRECIAN SOFA, MADE IN THE SOUTH 


PLATE 106 


Ay YIOK MAN “duT ‘uONeIDOssy sy uLdTJeuy jo Asaiinop Ag 
*{ (N ‘uowaoutsg Sbsq “nupny “|W Jepurxary Jo voTIDa/;OD ay1 WoIZ 
VdOS MOVE-ANILNAd YES AAAHd NVONNG 


AMERICAN DIRECTOIRE 147 


Much beautiful furniture has been constructed 
through the ages of decoration, but if anything more 
graceful than these three American pieces has been 
produced I do not know where to look for it. 

In England there were Grecian sofas so close to the 
American example as to show the source common to 
both. Sheraton embellished his design by an elaborate 
ornamentation of acanthus leaves (Plate 109 A) but it 
is Open to anyone to question how long the scroll under 
the head-rest would endure without breakage. The 
English sofa shown in Plate 103 B is a trifle “fussy.” 

And perhaps I may be excused if I prefer the grace- 
ful Philadelphia-made roll-arm sofa in Plate 108 to 
Sheraton’s rather stodgy example in Plate 109 B with 
its huge pedestal feet. 

The charmingly curved upholstered back in Phyfe’s 
sofa (Plate 106) is, so far as known, a unique speci- 
men of this treatment. This sofa belonged to the 
collection of Alexander M. Hudnut, Esq., recently sold 
by the American Art Association of New York. It 
came from a mansion at Oyster Bay, L. I., where it had 
been for about seventy-five years. The sofa with 
double-lyre arms (Plate 107), a famous piece belonging 
to Mr. Halsey and loaned by him to the Metropolitan 
Museum, is one of the finest specimens of Phyfe’s 
work. It will be noted that all the American sofas 
illustrated here have the graceful “sabre” legs, two of 
them being finished with brass caps. 

Phyfe also adopted the curule form for sofas— 
either single or double curule according to the length 
of the sofa. Caned seats and backs were often used. 

A characteristic treatment of the back-rail of many 
of his sofas is that seen in Plate 59, composed of three 
panels with carved ornaments—the horn-of-plenty, 
the thunderbolt, drapery-swags, trumpets, wheat-ears, 


148 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


oak-leaves and laurel were all used. Rarely all three 
ornaments were alike; usually one of them was selected 
for the centre panel with another for the side panels. 
He sometimes used these decorations for the top-rails 
of chairs and drapery swags on the roll tops of the 
bedsteads he copied from the type shown in Plate 110 C. 
The quantity of American Diregoire furniture made 
was evidently less than that of the preceding and suc- 
ceeding styles, but probably much remains in private 
homes. Diredoire sofas seem to have been particularly 
popular in the South: merely to mention a few in- 
Sances there are, or were a few years ago, examples 
at Sabine Hall, Carter’s Grove, and Brandon, all in 
Virginia, as well as at Whitby Hall, Philadelphia. 


TABLES 


The late Sheraton era was profuse in charming 
small tables, for which pedestals were used of the types 
iHustrated in Plate 110 A. These are of the same 
charaéter as those appearing in France, but Sheraton 
might quite as well have derived them from Adam 
and probably did so. There were, too, dining-tables 
with multiple pedestals. Sheraton also embraced with 
avidity the Diredoire idea of tables with two end- 
supports, and in his “Cabinet Dictionary” of 1803 
gives a number of designs, both with and without bars 
or stretchers between the two supports. In these 
supports he uses the lyre form, the curule, columns, 
and scrolls. 

These types were the fashionable tables in London 
and were produced here by Phyfe and other cabinet- 
makers. The lid so often employed by Phyfe is seen 
in his four-support table in Plate 111 and the source 
from which it derived is shown dire@ly opposite—Plate 
110 B. The lion-head drop-ring handle appearing in 


AMERICAN DIRECTOIRE 149 


this table is that of Sheraton’s later period. A number 
of these tables have the pendants so familiar in French 
Renaissance furniture. 

The lyre is adopted for the other pedestal table— 
Plate 112. This is a little heavier than some of his 
other examples and is probably later, showing the 
forthcoming thickening of the Empire period—of 
which a mere love of lumber was a prominent char- 
acteristic. This table is not an extreme example, but 
Phyfe in his later days—after 1825—-went the way of 
all others in deterioration. There seems to have been 
something fatal in the Empire style to everyone who 
touched it; or else that style was coincident with the 
lapse of good decorative design. 

The sofa-table was another of Phyfe’s successes 
and a fine example appears in Plate 113. Two of 
Sheraton’s pouch-table designs in the “Cabinet Dic- 
tionary”’ (his Plate 65) are very suggestive of this, but, 
again, Phyfe’s work closely resembles existing English 
examples of the period, one of which I have traced and 
show in Plate 112 B. Though, owing to the perspective, 
they are not clearly seen, there are two column supports 
at each end, as in Phyfe’s table. 

Charming little tables of Direcfoire type are seen in 
Plates 101, 102, and at the extreme right of 136. That 
in Plate tor is especially delightful. The last was 
made at Newport, R. I., the source of many attractive 
examples. 


SIDEBOARDS 


In his earlier years Phyfe made simple sideboards 
of the Hepplewhite type but he is also represented by 
his deep-end sideboards such as that illustrated in 
Plate 114. 

The deep-end sideboard is commonly considered an 


150 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


American development, but if anyone wishes to see 
an English example, deeper yet, he will find it in the 
London Connoisseur of July 1924 among the wedding 
furniture in 1802 of a young woman on the borders of 
Suffolk. 

It would appear that British influence in America 
was not yet dead: it would appear that our craftsmen 
and their clients of these years were much taken with 
the new modes, but, when they found such excellent 


derivations in England, they were content to use — 


either those or the originals, as was at the time most 
convenient. 

All this was entirely to the good, and is one more of 
the many instances of the solidarity of peoples in the 
social and mobiliary worlds. Art and the amenities of 
life draw nations together: it is the inhuman rivalries 
of trade and politics that cause them—as during this 
very period—to fly at each others’ throats. 


DUNCAN PHYFE 


Phyfe worked in the tradition of fine furniture- 
making and his forms and decorations can be traced 
to their sources. His chairs seem sufficiently various, 
and it is rather startling to find on analysis that all are 
composed of half-a-dozen types of back and half-a- 
dozen types of leg in various combinations. So far as 
is known, he made none of those important pieces of 
cabinet - furniture, secretaries, desks, china closets, 
chests of drawers, or bookcases. 

If, then, Phyfe was in no large sense an originator, 
if his product was rather limited in scope, wherein 
rests his right to fame? The answer is readily given. 
Though some of us may much prefer Corot’s more 
vital figure work, everyone is familiar with the Corot 
landscape. He, too, “worked in the tradition”—his 


bpm ai! ‘ 
oh Sh) eae es A 


PLATE 107 


« 


DUNCAN PHYFE LYRE-ARM SOFA 
Loaned to the Metropolitan Museum, by R. T. Haines Halsey, Esq., New York City 


PLATE 108 


erydjapeyiyg ‘wnasnyy vyuvalAsuueg sy] JO Asaiinoy Ag 
VIH@ISAVIHd NI JAVW VSOS WUV-TION FWOLITUd NVOANY 


PLATE 109 


aS 
SS < 
SS 


A. GRECIAN SQUAB 


B. GRECIAN SOFA 


ENGLISH DIRECTOIRE SOFAS 
From Sheraton’s ‘‘Cabinet Dictionary,’’ 1803 


PLATE 110 


Work-Tabl oN \ 


Draped O 


a 
Plate 54 Nov.1792 


é eeemsecnnge at 


B. English Sheraton Pembroke Table with 
lid used by Duncan Phyfe 
Hatfield Gallery of Antiques, London 


C. French Directoire Bedstead 
of type closely copied by Phyfe 


PLA arr st 


DUNCAN PHYFE FOUR-SUPPORT TABLE WITH LID DERIVED FROM SHERATON 
See Plate 110B 
By Courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum, New York City 


PLA Lie ra2 


Wie 


A. DUNCAN PHYFE LYRE-SUPPORT PEDESTAL TABLE 


tome 
SSE 


fi i 


B. ENGLISH SOFA-TABLE 
By Courtesy of Debenham & Freebody, London 
See Plate 113, opposite 


PLATE 113 


DUNCAN PHYFE SOFA-TABLE WITH DOUBLE-COLUMN END-SUPPORTS 
See Plate 112 B 
By Courtesy of R. T. Haines Halsey, Esq., New York City 


411 YOK MaN “uy ‘uod] Aasjoo yy sayaey Jo Asarinoy Ag 
GUVOdACIS GNa-daaId AIAHA NVONNG 


a 


AMERICAN DIRECTOIRE 161 


methods of painting were not notably different from 
those of his predecessors. Out of the realm of nature 
he selected a rather narrow range of subject and effect, 
carried his work to perfection in his own way, and 
made that field his own. So, likewise, in furniture, did 
Duncan Phyfe: his typical work is as recognisable as a 
Corot landscape. We find in him a sense of proportion 
both instinctive and trained, a genius for the subtle or 
the sweeping curve: his work is of great beauty, perfect 
refinement, and shows meticulous care. In the literal 
sense of the word Duncan Phyfe was a gentleman, and 
his furniture was made for gentlefolk. 


As will have been seen, Duncan Phyfe by no means 
Stood alone as the only fine cabinet-maker of the 
period, but as his was an extensive establishment and 
as his is the best known name in the annals of American 
furniture-making, a few particulars regarding him may 
be welcome. For the dates I am indebted to Mr. 
Cornelius. 

Phyfe was born in 1768, 30 miles from Inverness, 
Scotland, and with his parents came to Albany, New 
York, in 1783 or 4. As he was then about sixteen years 
old he worked at his trade, and the style with which 
he would first have become familiar was that of Hepple- 
white. Chippendale had died in 1779 and Phyfe’s 
work shows no reminiscences of the now outmoded 
Style. ; 

efter beginning business in Albany, Phyfe came to 
New York City in the early seventeen-nineties and 
settled in Partition (now Fulton) Street in 1795. This 
was the time of the advent of Sheraton in the furniture 
world and Phyfe showed himself Sheraton’s devoted 
follower, his early work being in that style with some 
remaining Hepplewhite characteristics. Within a few 


ES Oe 
iw ’ ae he 5 
4 Ul 


152 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


years he was making furniture for members of the 
Astor family and speedily became prominent. He 
gradually added other houses to his original establish- 
ment and is said to have employed more than a hundred 
workmen. He finally retired in 1847, lived a quiet, 
comfortable life, and died in 1854 at the age of 86. 


THE DATING OF THE PERIOD 


As Phyfe occupied a very advantageous position 
in that he was located in New York, by then advancing 
in metropolitan prominence, and was working for a 
select clientéle, it is likely that he was one of the first 
to adopt the Diredfoire mode. It would, therefore, 
have been exceedingly interesting to establish the date 
of his first produétions in that vein, and I have bent 
considerable effort in trying to ascertain this. Mr. 
Halsey, who has studied Phyfe furniture for thirty 
years, tells me that he learned “before Phyfe furniture 
was known, that certain old families in New York had 
records that certain pieces were made by a cabinet- 
maker named Phyfe,” and so these pieces are docu- 
mented to that extent. I have not, however, learned 
of bills or records that would fix the date of his first 
Direoire work. 

My own idea is that in general we may date the 
period as from about 1805 to about 1815. Most of the 
French furniture being actually constructed during the 
Consulate, 1799-1804, when order had firmly been 
reéstablished, it is not very probable that the style was 
taken up here to any considerable extent before 1805, 
and after the close of the war in 1814 there would 
certainly have been an influx of Empire tendencies both 
dire&t from France and through London. 


j 
} 
fy 

F 
a 
\ 
a 
, f 
a 

‘ 
‘ 
uel 

Ta 
“a 

 * 

‘ 
we 

ha 
bs 

ca 
an 
As 
# 
> 
-) 
ae 


THE AMERICAN EMPIRE STYLE 


BADLY overworked expression in writing on 
decoration, and one that has little if any applica- 
tion to the American furniture of previous periods, is 
the word influence. Our craftsmen did not work under 
the influence of Hepplewhite or another: they as 
definitely worked in the Style of Chippendale, Hepple- 
white, or Sheraton as did the cabinet-makers of England 
itself. As we have seen, they often made combinations 
and innovations, but these were of their own initiative 
and due to no foreign influence. Even in the Diredotre 
period our furniture closely trailed that of France or 
the English derivations thereof. 

But there is now a change. The pieces of American 
furniture that can be said to be of the style of the 
French Empire or of the Empire, or Regency, style in 
England are comparatively few indeed: for the most 
part American Empire is an inchoate mode composed 
of survivals from previous periods modified by i7- 
fluences and combined with features derived from 
abroad. 

We shall see these as we go on, but it may immedi- 
ately be mentioned that one of the most noticeable of 
the influences is weight. If we were ignorant of origins 
we might think, on seeing some of the debased pieces 
of later years, none of which are illustrated here, that 
our craftsmen discerned a virtue in mere avoirdupois: 
the truth of course is that Percier and Fontaine, Jacob- 
Desmalter, and the other ébeniSes of Napoleon were 
engaged in providing magnificent and monumental 
surroundings for their hero, and that bigness, heaviness, 
and the expanse of large surfaces of handsome ma- 

153 


154 AMERICAN FURNITURE ~ 


\ 


hogany were logical means to the securing of such 
effects. This is evident in the one piece of furniture 
‘lluSrated here that is really close to the French 
Empire style—the large sideboard in Plate 115. 

After the really beautiful things of past periods that 
we have been seeing we may not particularly care for 
this piece of furniture, but at least we cannot deny 
that it is handsome and imposing. And compared 
with some monstrosities later perpetrated it is by no 
means a bad piece of design. This volume closes at 
about the year 1825 before many of these debased pieces 
were made and so we escape their infliction. 

The ches of drawers in Plate 116 is quite illuminat- 
ing as a derivation—showing as it does the adaptations 
made by our craftsmen. The line-cut accompanying 
it is a French Empire commode of 1811-13, traced from 
“Meubles et Objets de Goat” by permission of William 
Helburn, Inc., and is the nearest to this American ex- 
ample of half a dozen similar pieces in that volume. 

The derivation of form is at once evident, but none 
of these French pieces have the extension running - 
across the Jower portion of the chest. The metal mounts 
of the French style have been omitted here and the 
knobs are of mahogany: it will be noted however that 
the character of the capitals of the pillars has been 
retained, notwithstanding the change in material. 

One of the greatest losses in our following of the 
Gallic mode was in the virtual abandonment of the 
metal mounts of the original style: none of our work- 
men could have approached the exquisite design and 
workmanship of the finest examples, but simple orna- 
ments and knobs such as those shown in the tracing 
should have been within reach of their accomplishment. 
However, the decadence was even then upon us in 
America as well as in Europe: great furniture design 


AMERICAN EMPIRE 155 


was now at its end, and after a hundred years there 
are no signs of its resurrection. Even in France the 
metal work was the finest survival—far better in 
design than most of the furniture to which it was 
attached. Where metal mounts appear on American 
furniture they were almost certainly imported and 
very possibly from Birmingham. 

In America not only were design and the sense of 
proportion failing but our exquisite workmanship was 
departing with them: carving often becomes coarser 
and sometimes careless. There are few pieces of which 
we feel that the work was done for the sheer love of 
the doing, as in the past. To return to the present 
example, the proportions of the American piece are 
much less pleasing than those of the French: never- 
theless this is an early and really excellent specimen 
of the style, being built of beautifully grained ma- 
hogany, well made, and with simply turned feet, while 
many later examples have the cumbersome paw-feet, 
sometimes awkwardly standing upon their toes. Ina 
number of such chests-of-drawers the top drawers are 
rounded. 

It is probable that pieces of American furniture of 
definitely Empire style but good qualities date from 
between the close of the war in 1814 and 1825. Some 
of the furniture still to be considered may possibly 
have been made slightly earlier, but it is difficult to 
determine, as it is of transition character; development 
varied in different sections, and survivals seem to have 
been the law of these years rather than the exception. 

For there is a class of furniture quite different in 
character from the derivations above treated, and so 
frequent that several examples are given to illustrate 
its various phases. It is best exemplified by the 
beautiful bedstead with tester (Plate 117) and the 


A i AMERICAN FURNITURE 


pretty little “late Sheraton” sewing-table (Plate 118 A), 
and it is such furniture that I have mentioned as a 
modified survival. The sewing-table retains the out- 
Standing leg of the earlier Sheraton period, but it also 
embodies the features now to be referred to as being 
especially characteristic of the group. These are the 
use of the small cluster of acanthus leaves in connexion 
with either the fluted or spiral-twist column, frequently 
also accompanied by the pineapple. 

No one of these features is new, but the greatly 
extended use of them and in combination may virtually 
be considered an American development. As showing 
the constant migration of decorative motifs it is worth- 
while to sidetrack a moment to remind the reader that 
the spiral-twist was in the seventeenth century brought 
from Indo-China by the Portuguese and from thence 
spread through Europe. It was introduced into 
England through the marriage, in 1662, of Charles II 
to Catherine of Braganza, daughter of the King of 
Portugal. The pineapple was originally a native of 
tropical America, though its growth has spread to 
other continents. As a symbol of hospitality it was 
used in Georgian times in architecture, upon gate- 
posts, and in silver ware. The acanthus of course goes 
back to the Greeks and their Corinthian capital. 

The thickening of such members as legs and pillars 
began in France as early as the Consulate (1799) and it 
is seen in the legs of the sewing-table, which otherwise 
would be a lovely piece of furniture. The tendency 
waxed with the years both there and in America. 

The chest-of-drawers with rounded front, Plate 119, 
shows the spiral-twist leg with pineapple top and 
dates probably between 1914 and 1920; while the 
bedstead in Plate 121 has the fluted post combined 
with both the acanthus and the pineapple. This bed- 


PLATE 115 


AMERICAN EMPIRE SIDEBOARD CLOSELY FOLLOWING FRENCH EMPIRE STYLE 
By Courtesy of Estate of James Curran, Philadelphia 


PLA LE 316 


A. AMERICAN CHEST-OF-DRAWERS 
RESEMBLING THE FRENCH STYLE 


Property of the Author 


B. FRENCH EMPIRE COMMODE OF 1811-13 
From ‘‘Meubles et Objets de Goit"’ 
By permission of William Helburn, Inc. 


PLALE 17 


BEDSTEAD WITH SPIRAL TWIST AND ACANTHUS POSTS 


PLATE, 128 


A. SEWING-TABLE PRESERVING SHERATON 
EXTENDED. LEGS 
By Courtesy of Abbot McClure, Esq. 


B. MAHOGANY EMPIRE CHAIR C. “FANCY"’ EMPIRE CHAIR 
Mary H. Northend Howard Reifsnyder 


PALE aS 


wet 


qf 
4 
4 
if 
f 
/ 
/ 
/ 
Jf 
/ 
/ 


# 


t 


BOW-FRONT CHEST-OF-DRAWERS AND LATE CHAIRS 
Property of Prescott Bigelow, Esq., Boston 
Photograph by the late Mary H. Northend 


PLATE 120 


ATAVL-IVLISAGAd AYIdWA NVOIYAWY TVOIdAL “A 


ABMOTOH 'S “Y “SAW JO Aasadosg 
FIAVL-ONIMAS AUldNWA NVOIWANV TVOIdAL “V 


pusyiJoN Ase aie] ay? yo Asaainoy Ag 


uoisog ‘asnoyx] 139Ig 
SOUT ATONEVD YAITYVA AHL HLIM GVALSdHd LSOd-AIddVANId 


PLATE 12.7 


PLAGE. 122 


ACANTHUS-POST BEDSTEAD: A STRICTLY AMERICAN INNOVATION 
By Courtesy of Estate of James Curran, Philadelphia 


AMERICAN EMPIRE 157 


Stead is more than a survival: it is distinctly a throw- 
back in incongruously adding to these the now long- 
gone-by Chippendale cabriole leg and claw-and-ball 
foot. 

The sofa was an especially notable piece of furniture 
during these years and many of them are of transitional 
character, preserving Duredfoire or English Regency 
features in connexion with Empire size, weight, and 
detail. Indeed the example in Plate 123 is particularly 
illustrative of the inchoateness of the style, that I have 
mentioned, inasmuch as it combines the ornamental 
contour of the back-rail shown in one of Sheraton’s 
own designs with the Direcfoire roll-over arms, and 
adds to these the especially awkward Empire feet com- 
posed of such harmonious eleménts as the horn-of- 
plenty and huge paws! Few of these pieces are an 
entire delight to the eye but that in Plate 125 is notably 
virile in its sweeping curves. Mr. George Alfred Cluett 
has a sofa identical with this except that the feet of 
his example are composed of eagle heads while these 
are those of the dolphin. The sofa in Plate 126, be- 
longing to the Hammond Estate, is typical American 
Empire. The seat alone of this sofa is 8 feet long by 
2 feet wide, and its back stands 38 inches from the 
floor - ; 

Typical also of the fully developed style are the 
two pedestal tables in Plate 120; both excellent pieces 
of furniture, though the legs of the larger example 
are lacking in grace of curve. 

The bedgteads with acanthus-carved posts, both 
high and half-high, are an American innovation, and 
though heavy are handsome—see Plate 122. Most of the 
good examples are probably anterior to 1820 or 1825. 

Mahogany of course remained the chosen wood of 


2. SSO 
158 AMERICAN FURNITURE 


the period—and superb mahogany it was—but there 
was still a very considerable use of maple. 

In chairs the graceful Dire@oire form fortunately 
persisted here, as it did in France. We also find a 
development—or rather a deterioration—presently to 
be touched upon. 

Of the Direéfoire form there were many variations. 
One of them, made in New York and illustrated in 
Plate 95, because it is of pure DireGoire contour, may 
possibly be of these years as it has the American eagle 
carved in the back. This symbol had been adopted 
considerably earlier, but especially after the close of 
the war in 1814 this and other emblems of triumph 
and prosperity overflowed into all household goods. 
For throughout those years we were terrifically, 
noisily, patriotic. This sentiment blossomed forth in 
every conceivable fashion—in toasts at social gather- 
ings, in pictures, furniture, pottery, and draperies— 
even to bed-spreads! Sometimes I wonder if the 
“cockiness”’ which those of other nations remark and 
resent in the American bearing is not the result of this 
overdose of “national consciousness.” 

But let us hie back from this debatable theme to 
that of furniture—in itself quite sufficiently debatable 
without encouraging flights in other direCtions. | 

An attractive example of the persisting Diredotre 
form of chair, recently seen, has a middle back-piece 
composed of a central shell flanked by entwined 
dolphins at each side. The decorated or “fancy” 
chair illustrated in Plate 118 C preserves the Direfoire 
curves of back and the overhanging top-rail. The 
latter continually occurs and, as in this instance, is 
usually curved inward to afford greater comfort. The 
painted “fancy” chair was very popular during these 


Pah t2) 


sees n CORO 


H 
% 


ARSC EON eee ee TR eee 


DiLsMtHAseeeae sey tye egg aaegaen grag eaves 


x 


Be a 


AMERICAN EMPIRE SOFA WITH SURVIVING SHERATON BACK 
By Courtesy of the late Mary H. Northend 


é 
* 
he 


AND DIRECTOIRE ARMS 


PEA THs 


SOLLSTUALIVUVHO FUILITMIG ONIAWASAUd VAOS AYIdWA 


NVOIMANY 


PLATE 125 


Samy 


PER ta 


AMERICAN EMPIRE SOFA 
From Beverly Farms, Massachusetts 


PLATE 126 


dove 


4 


LLL LLL 


a1) 
Ui) 


4 


ie 
Pe 


Sa 


a 


Sa HEA oe ir Gi 


en eaten 


puryAsey ‘A2un0D 42149pesy ‘puowweH “A Avy ai¥3sy JO Asaiimozy Ag 
sayour gf 4ovq jo IYSaH] “YF TX “IF 8 VAS 
LHOIM GNV aZIS LVaUD JO VdOS AMIdWA NVOIYAWV TVOIdAL V 


Eee 


~~ 


AMERICAN EMPIRE 159 


and later years and there are many pleasing examples. 
The Hitchcock chair is particularly well known. 

An example of the American Empire chair previ- 
ously referred to is shown in the bedroom of the Brett 
house in Plate 121. It is interesting as showing a 
departure. During the Chippendale period the cabriole 
leg was set diagonally to the piece—as it is in the 
accompanying bedstead. Then Chippendale re-in- 
troduced the straight leg, and it was employed through- 
out the Hepplewhite-Sheraton régime. During the 
Diredoire period the curved leg again came into vogue, 
but the curve began at the top of the seat rail. Now 
we find its commencement below the seat, and it is 
again truly a cabriole leg, but flat on the sides and set 
flush with the side-rails and not diagonally. How 
interesting are the changes from style to style—and 
how little they are observed! It will be noted, too, 
that the back-splat—absent for so many years—has 
returned with the leg; but, again, with some difference 
in form. | 

A side chair that I have just seen is most interesting 
in that it is wholly of Direcfoire form while between the 
top and middle back-rails appears a very diminutive 
splat of this American Empire type. It is therefore 
a transition piece and probably marks the very be- 
ginning of the revived use of the splat. 

A chair very similar to that in Plate 121 but with 
a different back-rail is seen in Plate 118 B. These 
specimens are not unattractive and have a quaintness 
and homelike feeling of their own, but the declension 
in grace of design between them and the pure Diredfoire 
contour illustrated in the previous chapter is but too 
evident. What that declension could really accomplish, 
however, scarcely needs other exemplifications than 
the pair of chairs accompanying the chest-of-drawers 


int ty 


a cs 


fee AMERICAN FURNITURE 


in the opposite illustration—Plate 119: the show - 
saddening decadence which set in in all the decora 
arts. Be vis. 
Such a downfall is of no small moment to the hu 
race: it goes deeper than is realised by those who 
not continually concerning themselves with beauty 
and its effe& upon mankind. “The arts”—said Rev. 
Dr. Bernard Iddings Bell recently in the Ada 
Monthly—“The arts—those activities whereby m 
would clamber from the beasts to fly among the god 


Fortunately we shall see further manifestations 
the art-spirit in America, for though these chapters o 
furniture have reached their conclusion they are fo 
lowed by two others—those on the interior architectur 
of the various periods and the accessories therew 
employed. 


‘ 


Tsay. 


DECORATION 


INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE 
DECORATIVE ACCESSORIES 


¥ 


INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE—COLONIAL AND 
FEDERAL 


T MAY as well frankly be granted that modern con- 
ditions confronting us often render the carrying 
out of a strictly historic interior difficult or impossible. 
The introduction of suitable panelling, mantels, and 
the like in rented houses or apartments is not always 
practicable: a house may be purchased of which we 
feel the interior to be sufficiently appropriate without 
adding to its initial cost the expense of extensive 
changes. 

In such cases one should at least follow the spirit of 
our historic decoration, though we may not be able 
to follow the letter. If we avoid incongruous elements, 
we may very well do with plastered, papered, or painted . 
walls, and simple door- and window-trims. 

If a but moderate outlay be contemplated, much 
may be accomplished through the applying of simple 
mouldings over canvas, a dado, or the introduction of 
a chair-rail to a plain plastered wall, according to the 
period to be carried out in walls and furnishing. 

For, contrary to the too usual misconception, there 
existed in the domestic architecture of America, during 
the two centuries from its settlement to 1825, several 
overlapping, but nevertheless distinct styles, to the 
characteristics of which we must give due heed. 

Not all those who have a fair knowledge of Ameri- 
can furniture realise the importance of its architectural 
setting. On the other hand too great purism is in- 
advisable; for we do not always consider how com- 
paratively few ridly period interiors can have existed 


in any past period. An example would be an edifice 
163 


164 AMERICAN DECORATION 


newly erected and newly decorated and furnished all 
in the best and very latest manner of that particular 
year. Colour, draperies, and accessories would be in 
complete accord. Every age would of course have 
afforded some such examples, but what a small nu- 
merical relation would they bear to the residences of 
like class thereabouts. Even in those cases where the 
furnishings were entirely new, the interior architecture, 
if in good condition and not too greatly outmoded, 
would frequently remain unchanged. Throughout the 
history of decoration transitions from one style to 
another were very gradual and the older mode in-— 
variably overlapped the new. ‘There were always 
important, fashionable houses introducing the latest 
developments, these new features gradually being 
embodied in succeeding buildings. 

With due regard to the limits of a convenient 
volume scarcely more can be done here than furnish 
a handy sketch of the styles and changes most interest- 
ing to the general reader, without attempting to cover 
all features or their many variations; and in general 
this can best be done by illustrating and commenting 
upon a few rooms from notable houses among those 
that helped “set the pace” for less ambitious homes. 
For such houses were the more perfect of their kind and 
embodied the ideal toward which others strove. 


BEFORE 1700 


When houses evolved from the primitive shelter 
into the more or less comfortable abode, the more 
usual finish of the interior was in New England a 
sheathing of broad boards grooved together, perhaps 
more usually set perpendicularly but frequently hori- 
zontally. Adopted in that severe climate primarily 
for purposes of warmth, it is, though a severely simple, 


INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE 165 


a not unattractive finish, and is often reproduced to- 
day. When this is done, it of course should be accom- 
panied by correspondingly simple furniture of its time. 
This sheathing was also employed for the partitions 
between the rooms, and such doors as remain extant 
were similarly constructed and studded with wrought- 
iron nails. Sometimes clay plaster took the place of 
sheathing. The windows of good houses were lead 
casements, sometimes with transoms, and usually in 
ranges of two or more windows. It is not generally 
realised that glass was a comparatively scarce com- 
modity even in England in the early seventeenth 
century, and until its middle years oiled paper was 
not infrequently used throughout the colonies, espe- 
cially in the poorer houses. Some windows were fur- 
nished with shutters instead of sash. The great fire- 
places were exceedingly simple, and the beams of the 
ceiling commonly appeared. 

In the middle and Southern colonies plastering of 
the inside of the outer walls was the rule, but the inner 
walls seem generally to have been frame partitions. 


1700-1776 


Massachusetts and Connecticut were very con- 
servative and the above features often there persisted 
during the first quarter of the eighteenth century. 
When panelling was introduced it was at first likely_to 
retain features of the Queen Anne style rather than 
at once to adopt the Georgian mode. But the beginning 
of the century marks the gradual transition to panelled 
walls and double-hung sash in the wealthier and more 
progressive sections of New England, such as Ports- 
mouth, New Hampshire, and in the middle and 
Southern colonies. Nevertheless, leaded casements 


166 AMERICAN DECORATION 


persisted in some instances even through the eighteenth 
century. 

Following the introduction of the mode of Inigo 
Jones and Wren in England (a style decidedly classic 
though with some Baroque tendencies) the develop- 
ment in interior finish in America was surprisingly 
rapid, so that by 1722 we find such interiors as that of 
Graeme Park illustrated in Plate 127. By 1730 there 
existed in Virginia and Pennsylvania interiors very 
similar to that at Ratcliffe Manor, near Easton, Mary- 
land, illustrated in Plate 128. This is shown as an 
especially charming example, which, though not built 
until 1749, follows the general style of earlier houses 
in more advanced locations. Graeme Park was erected 
by Sir William Keith, the Governor of Penn’s colony, 
notable as one such Governor who was popular with 
the people—and hence not with the Proprietaries, by 
whom he was finally deposed. This seat is located at 
Horsham, about nineteen miles from Philadelphia, and 
when Sir William drove to the city “he made the 
journey with his coach-and-four in truly regal fashion.” 

Between say 1722 and 1730 there was an abandon- 
ment of this bolder, heavier Queen Anne type in favour 
of one of greater refinement, and from this time on there 
was a constant development and organisation of this 
new mode, and what that mode was and how that de- 
velopment occurred should properly be understood. It 
was simply the transfer to America of the English arch- 
itectural style of the Georges, and is properly, there- 
fore, termed the Georgian style. Just as our cabinet- 
makers were working in the English mode, so were our 
builders. And this occurred in each case through the 
same means. Workmen in both branches came from 
England but during this period the greatest infiltration 
of adequate knowledge of the styles undoubtedly came 


“ 

a 
ue 
; 

‘ a 4 
‘# 
La 
a 
iy 


INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE 167 


through books. The number of architectural works, 
both elaborate and in the shape of smaller handbooks, 
was large, and some of them ran through repeated edi- 
tions. Because of our need of guidance, most of these 
found their way here quickly, and their use by builders 
was universal. A natural result of the same knowledge 
circulating throughout the colonies was a quite uniform 
development of our domestic architecture, varied some- 
what in expression, it is true, by local conditions and 
climate. The South Carolina house differed in plan 
from that of Pennsylvania, and that of Pennsylvania 
varied somewhat from that of New England, but never- 
theless as a whole we find consistency of style. 

Architecture and furniture usually march together, 
but before 1760 we have the unusual spectacle of this 
classic phase of interior architecture accompanied by 
the Dutch Baroque furniture of the Queen Anne- 
Early Georgian mode, and after 1760 by that of 
Chippendale. The “Architects Furniture” of early 
Georgian years was, as we have seen, an attempt to 
turn furniture in the classic direction. 

It was however but partial and certain classes of 
furniture only were affected: any move in this direction 
speedily ceased under the influence of Chippendale, 
not at all a classicist; so that it was not until the adop- 
tion of the Hepplewhite and Sheraton styles, after the 
Revolution here, that furniture was brought into 
accord with architecture. 

During the Chippendale period the current fash- 
ionable French influence introduced into this generally 
classic architecture many Rococo features. The volume 
most potent in this direction was Abraham Swan’s 
“British Architect,” published in London in 1745, 
circulating here, and printed in an American edition 
in Philadelphia in 1775. These Rococo features appear 


168 AMERICAN DECORATION 


as far south as in the notable home of Miles Brewton 
in Charleston. 

As the Chippendale style of furniture had its 
highest development in Philadelphia no interior could 
be more appropriate, as showing its architectural 
setting, than Mt. Pleasant, Fairmount Park, built 
soon after 1761 and later owned by Benedict Arnold. 
Close indeed is the kinship, for the ornament in the 
upper portion of the overmantel of this state-chamber 
(Plate 129, reproduced by permission of H. Ferdinand 
Beidleman) is the Chippendale Rococo of the furniture 
and likely carved by one of those to whom we owe the 


beautiful work of the chairs, tables, and highboys we 


have seen. It will be noted, too, that there again 
appear the flower rosettes to which attention was 
called. ay 

Beautiful as was their architecture even these most 
“advanced” houses offered few of the conveniences 
of living that we enjoy today. Each floor usually con- 
tained but four rooms with a large hallway. We all 
know the outside appearance of the usual pre-Revolu- 


tion house—a central doorway flanked by two windows ~ 


at each side on the first floor and a range of five uni- 
form flat-headed windows above. The Palladian 
window (arched centre with two flat-headed narrower 
side-lights) occurred, particularly on stairways. There 
are Palladian windows in this house above the central 
doorway on both fronts. As we are taking this illus- 


tration as a text, it will be seen that the window to the. 


right, in common with numbers of others throughout 
the country, has panelled inside folding shutters. 

At Mt. Pleasant there are two separate dependencies 
or outbuildings, and these contained the kitchen and 
offices. In most houses the kitchen was in the base- 
ment. No matter how well covered, food that was 


PUA E27 


DRAWING-ROOM 


AT GRAEME PARK, HORSHAM TOWNSHIP, NEAR PHILADELPHIA, 1722 
Queen Anne Type appearing later than in England ; 
By Courtesy of H. Ferdinand Beidleman 


PLATE 128 


LIVING-ROOM AT RATCLIFFE MANOR, NEAR EASTON, MARYLAND 
Early Georgian type 
By Courtesy John Martin Hammond, Esq. 


ea Nos oe 


in ha ietane ete 


- 
i 


THE STATE BED-CHAMBER, SECOND FLOOR, MT. PLEASANT, PHILADELPHIA. BUILT SOON 
Perfected Georgian style with Rococo pediment to the overmantel 
By Courtesy of H. Ferdinand Beidleman 


AFTER 1761 


° pia Redin8 


SEA. 


REGED BOIS 


orgr “9 ‘erydyapepryg ‘psoyyjaM, Aq jauew wepy “stseg ‘mmoynq ydasof Aq saded-jyem yoo) uyeadeD 
VIHA TACVTIHd “TIVH IVIYOWAW “‘WOESAW VINVATASNNAd AHL LY WOOY XOOD NIVIdV) FHL 


é 
F 
& 
* 
4 
* 
5 


wicca tee 


PLAT E236 


POAT E131 


THE PARLOUR AT KENMORE, NEAR FREDERICKSBURG, VIRGINIA. 
Stucco walls, mantel, and ceiling 
Photograph by The Cook Studio, Richmond, Virginia 


BUILT BEFORE 1775 


POAT: 232. 


sorsysa2dvIvYyy Wepy 


, 4 
Dries 


‘bsq ‘puowwrpy ulsey uyof yo AsaiinoZ Ag 


GNVIAUVW ‘ALNNOD THONOUV ANNV “TIVHALIHM LV SAVMYOOd 
yum Aemsioog “g a} 4ag urtZ10ay ur Aeassoogd “y 


tigated. 


PLATE 3333 


AN ADAM MANTEL AT THE LILACS, FAIRMOUNT PARK, PHILADELPHIA 
By Courtesy of H. Ferdinand Beidleman 


PEALE ory4 


£19190G [eITIOISIFY YOK MAN ay3 jo vorssassod ay? ur stavq vosyse[ sapurxa, Vy Aq 3u1Mesp snojoo-393eM [eUISTIO 942 WOIT 
ofgt “D “IVAIATY DISSVIO “ALIOINYOA MAN “ASNOH SNAAGLS “O NHOf AHL dO YOIYALNI 


PE wccmpivicier npygenni 


SE 
DOOD 


on 


PEARL ENG Siar AE RIN TS 
SRM DO TRG > 
gS aed 
+ SRAM 


_ INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE 169 


“piping-hot’’ can scarcely have been usual at Mt. 
Pleasant. 

In this and many other houses various arrange- 
ments were now used for doing away with the great 
Stairway in the central hall—here it was banished to 
a compartment at the side. 

Earlier in the century, as 1 England, the fully 
panelled wall was the ideal; though, for the saving of 
expense, some walls were frequently left plain except 
on the fire-place side in less important houses or in the 
less public rooms. But rt was for no such reason that 
we see the plain wall with dado at Mt. Pleasant. It is 
in itself an indication that the use of panelling was now 
on the decrease. This was not yet invariable, how- 
ever, as is shown by one of the finest interiors in the 
whole country—that of the Brewton house, 1765-69, 
previously referred to, with full architectural treat- 
ment throughout the drawing-rooms, which extend 
along the entire second-story front. This custom of | 
placing important rooms on the second floor was quite 
common in the South and was later adopted in such 
fashionable Northern residences as the Bingham house 
in Philadelphia, built before 1788. 

Where panels remained they were large, those on 
the side walls usually extending from dado to ceiling. 
Light tints of colour were used as well as white. 

Because of the importance of the “hearth” in 
home life the fire-place wall was given the most elabo- 
rate treatment. Imported mantels were frequently 
used and these were without shelf. These mantels, as 
also doorways, window-casings, and overmantels, were 
commonly dog-eared. The overmantels consisted of 
a central panel, for mirror or painting, surrounded by 
an architrave, as at Mt. Pleasant. There might be 
pilasters at the sides, or the overmantel might be 


170 AMERICAN DECORATION 


topped with a broken pediment of the character shown 
over the side-cupboards here. The cornice was of 
good weight and the dado was retained even when the — 
field of the wall above was plain. The handsome 
acanthus consoles will be noted. 

The letter of Thomas Hancock of Boston ordering 
wall-paper from London in January 1737-8 is well 
known. The use of this wall-covering remained in- 
frequent at first, but grew in favour, and especially 
after 1760 became extremely fashionable. The hand- 9 
some scenic and other papers, particularly those of 
France, made a wide appeal (see Plate 130). Miss he 
McClelland in her “Historic Wall-Papers” tells us ; 
that in 1769 Plunket Fleeson of Philadelphia an- 
nounces “American Paper Hangings, manufactured in 2 
Philadelphia, of all kinds and colours, not inferior to 
those generally imported and as low in price.” | My 

This new fashion in wall-treatment was doubtless Pp 
largely responsible for the disuse of panelling, though 
even when it was discontinued many walls remained 
plain. 

Textiles were used for wall-coverings with sufficient 
frequency to be advertised for this purpose. Light 
blue silk was employed in the Richard Derby house, 
Boston, previous to 1825. | 

But anterior to the Revolution we also find a very 
different type of interior—that illustrated by Kenmore, 
near Fredericksburg, Virginia, the home of Betty Lewis, 
the sister of Washington (Plate 131). A similar style 
prevailed at Mt. Vernon. Both these houses were 
previous to 1775. At Kenmore, walls, ceiling, and 
mantel are all of stucco, and it will be noticed that the 
ceiling is not Rococo, against which a reaction was 
now being felt. The dog-ear still prevails in mantel 
and overmantel, and we also see the panelled inside 


ie 
Re ae 


INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE 171 


shutter. The dado is plain. Notice the mantel: there 
is not yet the later widely projecting shelf, but room 
is found upon the end-blocks for two small ornaments. 

We can well imagine the beauty and attraction 
such interiors must have presented when they were 
the scenes of the social life of the period. 


THE ADAM INFLUENCE 


And now a transition. In the fine old mansion of 
Whitehall, Maryland, are the two doorways illustrated 
in Plate 132: one of these with the triangular pediment 
and fluted pilasters is of the type we have been review- 
ing; the other shows the beginnings of Adam influence. 
We must so speak of it, for in America it made itself 
felt more in the way of a modification of the Georgian 
Style than by wholesale adoption as an entity. 

Whitehall was the home of the Colonial governor 
of Maryland, Horatio Sharpe, who has been debited 
with first suggesting the stamp-act. Mr. John Martin . 
Hammond (to whom I am indebted for the use of the 
photographs) in his ‘‘Colonial Mansions of Maryland 
and Delaware”’ tells us that the superb woodwork of 
this house was all the work of a young redemptioner 
who was offered his freedom if he would decorate 
Whitehall. Pathetically, upon the completion of his 
task he was stricken by sudden illness and died. The 
date is not given, but as the governor returned to 
England in 1790 it was anterior to that year. The 
house itself was built before 1763. 

There is an important difference here to be noted. 
The interior architecture of the Queen Anne and Geor- 
gian style has been referred to as classic: and so it was; 
but it was the classicism of the Renaissance, filtered 
through Inigo Jones, Wren, and others. Now there is 
a direct return to antiquity itself. 


172 AMERICAN DECORATION 


The conception of classicism formed by Robert 
Adam was, as has been mentioned in the Furniture 
section, based upon four years’ study of architectural 
remains upon the Continent, particularly those of 
Pompeii and Spalato. His views—either tempera- 
mental or influenced by the volume by Andrea Coner 
—were that for modern domestic architecture the 
classic proportions should be attenuated. Slenderness 
is, then, one of his distinguishing features, and we have 
already noted his tremendous influence upon furniture 
in the routing of the style of Chippendale and in the 
slender classic forms of his followers, Hepplewhite and 
Sheraton. In the Whitehall doorway we see, through- 
out, the influence of his great refinement as well as 
several of his favourite classic ornaments—the Greek 
anthemion and the egg-and-dart and bead-and-reel 
mouldings. The ears are retained here, but they 
were soon abandoned. 

Wall-papers were still used, such as the famous 
Captain Cook paper in the Pennsylvania Museum 
(Plate 130) seen there in connexion with an Adam 
mantel ornamented by Wellford, Philadelphia, about 
1810, and an imported Adam mirror and sconces. 
Many walls were of plain plaster but preserving the 
dado top-rail. 

Under the Adam influence, from 1780 onwards, 


numerous changes took place. One of the greatest of | 


these was in the direction of convenience and, in con- 
sequence, comfort. Though there was an abundance 
of it in the furniture of the eighteenth century, only 
now did convenience make itself manifest in American 
homes. Adequate heating and lighting were not 
known much in advance of our own days. 

First in the procession of changes came a greater 
number of rooms, and often variety in their shapes. 


6% ne eae 
as = br ae pig 
ee ee are eee ae a 


INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE 173 


For social purposes the circular or the elliptical Adam 
drawing-room made its appearance. Woodlands, Phila- 
delphia, was the leader in a number of innovations: as 
remodelled in 1788 it contained not only elliptical 
rooms but a classic circular vestibule with eight col- 
umns and intervening niches as well as a domed ceiling. 

Mantels are particularly indicative of the Adam 
Style, for doorways and window-casings followed them 
in their general characteristics, emphasis being laid 
upon these necessary architectural features, with the 
plain or papered wall as a relief. One of the finest of 
these composition mantels is that at The Lilacs, a 
quite small house in West Fairmount Park, Phila- 
delphia, illustrated by the courtesy of Mr. Beidleman 
in Plate 133. Both in this mantel and that in the 
Captain Cook room there are columns at the ends, 
these being surmounted by blocks extending through 
the entablature to the shelf. Doorways usually had 
these end-blocks, but the side-casings were often like. 
those at Whitehall. Nor did the mantels themselves 
by any means always have columns—flat, panelled or 
fluted pilasters were very common. And we find these 
mantels both with and without overmantels of Adam 
form and decoration, those without being the norm. 

In short, in the many varied adaptations of the 
Style in America it made itself most manifest in attenu- 
ation and in character of ornament. There were even 
such survivals as in the Pierce (Nichols) house at 
Salem, Massachusetts, where no less a man than 
Samuel McIntire carried out in the East Parlour the 
full architectural treatment of the earlier style but in 
the Adam manner. 

When Palladian windows remained they were 
usually simplified, but we now find arched windows, 
and from about 1810, those with which many apart- 


174. AMERICAN DECORATION 


ment-houses have made us familiar, triple flat-headed 
windows, those at the sides being narrower than that 
at the centre. The sash-bars were now made lighter, 
and sometimes the sills were at the floor. “i 


THE CLASSIC REVIVAL 


The Classic Revival may be treated briefly here, 
for, though its inception was much earlier, the Greek 
phase did not get into full swing in domestic archi- 
tecture till about 1825. It would seem that ripening 
circumstances had occurred some years before this and 
the delay in fruition is somewhat puzzling. As 
America was the first great republic to be established 
in modern times it was rather natural for us to look 
back to and in a measure identify ourselves with the 
Republic of Rome. France took the same attitude 
in the seventeen-nineties. The “back to antiquity” 
movement was everywhere in the air. Jefferson was 
the American pioneer, in his sketch for remodelling 
the Governor’s house at Williamsburg, about 1779. 
He adhered to Roman forms but others travelled 
back still further and adopted the Greek order. The 
Thaddeus Burr house at Fairfield, Connecticut, the 
firs known example of its employment in domestic 
architecture, was built as early as 1790. But there, 
for a time, the Greek movement hesitated. a teas 

To review, then, the Classic Revival began with 
Adam, continued through the Regency or Greco- 
Roman phase till about 1815, at which time it began 
to be supplanted by the heaviness of the Greek forms. 

From 1800 onward this influence had had effect, and 
especially in public buildings, but some years elapsed 
before its widespread adoption in dwellings occurred. 
Our sympathies with the Greek struggle for independ- 
ence (1821-27) turned this incipient movement into 


INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE 175 


a craze, and till 1850 Greek Revival architecture swept 
the then-existing country. 

No other such complete statement of an interior 
of this style is known as the architect’s own water- 
colour drawing of the drawing-rooms of the John C. 
Stevens house, New York City, of about 1830, pre- 
served in the New York Historical Society and here 
reproduced in Plate 134. The entire wall surface is 
plain and painted grey. The entablature is carried 
around the rooms, the notable architectural feature 
being the double screen between, with its Ionic columns 
from the floor. The mantel is of Direoire style and 
of white marble with bronze mounts. The console- 
table is likewise of marble and of Roman design, with 
tripod and urn of bronze and gold surmounting it. 

The accessories of this interior will be described, 
with those of the earlier periods, in the next and final 
section of this volume. 


DECORATIVE ACCESSORIES 


N CONSIDERING the decoration of the American | 


interior the use of our knowledge of conditions 
will go far toward sparing us a vast amount of detail 
and what might afford us a number of uncomfortable, 
because puzzling, surprises. Indeed how otherwise 
would it be possible to treat within reasonable limits 
of the decoration of two centuries with all their varie- 
ties of circumstance! 

On the one hand we have already seen that our 
settlement was accomplished often with the greatest 
hardship. To the pioneers who pushed out into the 
wilderness life remained difficult and isolation from 
the centres was almost complete. With such families, 
and frequently with those of small means in the settle- 
ments themselves, decoration would depend almost 
entirely upon home industry—the loving handiwork 
of wife and daughters in weaving, dyeing, and many 
other household arts. 

But then how is it that as early as the sixteen- 
fifties we read in inventories of damasks, velvets, 
needlework, turkey-work, cushions, India fabrics, 
elaborate bed-draperies, fine silverware and china- 
ware! 

The fact of course is that in the lerger seaboard 
centres very early were to be found a few families of 
means and taste who insisted upon having in the new 
land that to which they had been accustomed in the 
old; and, with these, others who speedily prospered 
and so were able to indulge in the amenities or even 
the luxuries of life. 

176 


ee eS, Ae Aan 


DECORATIVE ACCESSORIES 177 


And, naturally, there were several grades of com- 
fort between these two classes. 

If we remember that decoration is always and 
everywhere governed by degree of means, knowledge, 
taste, and the then existing supply we can quite ap- 
proximately say in what any special decoration 
consists. 

Though intercourse with England was slow it was 
constant, and it was perfectly possible to bring over 
any decorative materials that might be ordered by 
the householder or by the dealer. And advertisements 
show the energy of the merchant and his pride in 
keeping up with London fashion. 

The goods current in each English period are, then, 
the index of what a little later might be found in 
prosperous households here. So we must bear in mind 
certain developments from time to time. The tall 
clock-case, for example, was first constructed in the 
eighteenth century as a protection to the swinging | 
pendulum then first introduced. 

Silversmiths arrived here almost as early as cabinet- 
makers, and so most of our silver was American; but 
makers of chinaware and glassware were few and 
late, and therefore our supply was in the early periods 
entirely derived from abroad and in the later years 
largely so. 

The East India painted cotton fabrics, bright with 
birds and flowers, and often imitated by European 
manufacturers, were very popular here as well as 
abroad during the late seventeenth and eighteenth 
centuries. ‘These, with other textiles previously re- 
ferred to, the floor-coverings to be mentioned, and 
embroidered pictures and samplers added strong notes 
of colour to our early interiors. 

The decorative situation in general is very well 


178 AMERICAN DECORATION 


indicated by the matter of floor-coverings. ‘Those 
earlie%t in use were, naturally, of home manufacture. 
Rag woven and braided rugs were the more popular 
‘a the middle colonies and hooked-rugs in New Eng- 
land, but none of these was exclusive to one section. 
The art of making hooked-rugs was brought from 
England by the colonists: these are one of the most 
interesting of our home productions and good speci- 
mens are much appreciated to-day. | 

We might be sure, however, that with prosperity 
and the emulation of English modes, especially in the 
eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the floor- 
coverings of the better houses would be European 
carpets—and so the records tell us. In the familiar 
account by Henry Wansey of the drawing-room of the 
Bingham house in Philadelphia in 1794, as but one 
ingtance, he writes: “the carpet one of Moore’s most 
expensive patterns.” 

Nevertheless, the making and the use of the hand- 
made rug continued. They were decorative and 
durable, and our ancestors took pride in their handi- 
work. The foreign produc appeared in the im- — 
portant rooms of fashionable houses, but even there 
some of the simpler bedrooms would very likely 
contain home-made rugs: and in the greater number 
of abodes they would remain the principal floor- 
coverings. 

But there were changes and developments. The 
earlier designs of hooked-rugs were of geometrical 
pattern; later, flower or leaf designs were added to — 
these; and by the middle of the eighteenth century 
very attractive flower-designs were usual. In the 
nineteenth century birds and beasts appeared. Natur- 
ally the designs and colourings vary greatly in merit, 
being entirely dependent upon the taste of the maker, 


st ea eaters Be 


ee 
- 


DECORATIVE ACCESSORIES 179 


From the result itself we cannot doubt that some of 


_ the finer specimens of later periods owe their inspira- 


tion to imported textiles and Aubusson or other 
foreign carpets. 

A few needlework carpets, in woolen yarn on 
canvas ground, were also made here. 

As wealth and facilities increased the scale of 
living developed accordingly, and so we see that the 
decoration prevailing in the better houses from the 
beginning of the Chippendale period to 1825 was 
anticipated, save as regards stylistic changes, by the 
wealthy in earlier days and emulated at all times by 
those of lesser means. We cannot then do better 
than review, a little later, what then obtained— 
always bearing in mind, however, these changes in 
circumstances and style. 

As to the former we should remember that mirror- 
glass, for instance, was not made in England itself 
till 1673, though there had been importations from | 
Italy before that time. Mirrors in the colonies were 
therefore exceedingly scarce in early days. 

As to their style, mirrors are of such importance 
in decoration that we may here run over their prin- 
cipal varieties. The typical contours of those of the 
first periods are shown in the line drawings herewith. 

The earliest examples of Stuart style—the last 
quarter of the seventeenth century here—were doubt- 
less imported from England. ‘The frames were wide, 
and nearing the square in shape, with a top extension 
of varying design but virtually always of semi-circular 
form. These persisted into the William and Mary 
period and in that reign in England were largely of 
marqueterie. 

Those of Anne (first quarter of the eighteenth 
century) were of very different proportion, being tall 


180 AMERICAN DECORATION 


and narrow. Though there was much variation in 
the heading it was so characteristic as always to be 
recognisable from 'the typical outline given here. ‘. 


Stuart and William and Mary 
TYPICAL CONTOURS OF EARLY MIRRORS. 


A particularly fine walnut and gilt mirror appears 
in Plate 135 A. Of generally Georgian type its uppe 
and lower decoration is Rococo, and the basket o 
flowers is close in style to the acroterium ornamen 
of the Chippendale case-pieces we have seen. This — 
mirror belonged to Noah Webster of Dictionary fame 
and was purchased from his descendants near Middle- 
town, Connecticut. | hgnecel 

The silhouette or cut-out type illustrated in Plate 
135 B was current throughout the Chippendale period 
in America. wie 

Its Philadelphia maker landed in 1753, and his 
first advertisement appeared in 1756. His earliest 
productions were quite decidedly Anne in contour. 
He then took up simpler versions of the mirror illus-_ 
trated and, as will be seen by the date of the present 


PLATE 135 


A. WALNUT AND GILT MIRROR, C. 1750-65 
By Courtesy of Charles Woolsey Lyon, Inc., New York 


B. MIRROR BY JOHN ELLIOTT & SONS, 1804-09 
By Courtesy of the Peansylvania Museum 


PLATE 136 


VIHdTadVIIHd “TIVH IVIMOWAW “‘WOASAW VINVATASNNAd HHL LY WOOU NOLLIGIHXH NV 


PLALEH 137 


A. GILDED MIRROR OF ADAM STYLE, 1785-1800 


B. GILDED GIRANDOLE WITH FOUR LIGHTS. C. 1800 
By Courtesy of Howard Reifsnyder, Esq. 
Photographs by Dillon 


PLATE 138 


VIHdTdGVTIHd “TIVH IVINOWAW “WOESNW VINVATASNNAd AHL LV FaOLINYNd GNV SaIYOssdoOV 


DECORATIVE ACCESSORIES 181 


example, the firm continued the general style till the 
Chippendale mode was almost, temporarily, forgotten. 
But in England itself the elaborately Rococo Chippen- 
dale mirror (not made here) continued in use through 
the classic years almost to the end of the eighteenth 
century. It will then be seen that it is well not to be 
too puristic, though it is better that accessories should 
generally accord. 

Both of the mirrors appearing in the frontispiece 
are of the Georgian style but current from 1750 to 
1775 or even later. 

That in Plate 136 has a rounded pediment and 
shows a rather more classic tendency. It belonged to 
Joshua Humphreys who built six frigates for the 
American goverment. 

The mirror occurring in Plate 43 (1790-1800) 
preserves many of the former characteristics but in its 
upper portion takes on features next to be mentioned. 

The Captain Cook room (Plate 130) contains an — 
English Adam mirror with accompanying sconces. 
Many American derivations were made through the 
Hepplewhite-Sheraton régime and one of them appears 
in Plate 137 A. The ornament of all these Adam 
mirrors was delicate and of gilded composition, on 
wire, and hence they are often called “Fuilagree 
mirrors.” 

From about 1800 on we find the girandole or 
circular mirror with lights, to which are often added 
glass pendents. These are exceedingly decorative. 
The dolphin or else the sea-horse, as in the example 
illustrated in Plate 137 B, seem to have been favourite 
ornaments. 

Plate 138 shows not only the very familiar long 
gilded mantel-mirror so often miscalled “Colonial” 
and really of the late Empire style, but also a lovely 


182 AMERICAN DECORATION 


example of the earlier classic mirror of our Diredoire 
period. In light tint or white, painted on the reverse 
of the glass frame-insets, and gold, with delicately 
painted headings and great refinement of form and 
detail, this is one of the most beautiful of Styles. 
Another excellent mirror, with painted heading, and 


of the Diredfoire and early Empire years, occurs in 
Plate 46. 


ACCESSORIES OF THE CHIPPENDALE AND FEDERAL 
STYLES 3 
We may now proceed with the accessories of our 


best periods, and it will greatly simplify an under- 
Standing of them to remember that in general they 


follow the characteristics of each style—which we have ~ . 


already seen in furniture and architecture—and are 


therefore not difficult to classify. 
An example of this is the tall clock illustrated in 


Plate 139 and made by E. Duffield, the executor of 


Benjamin Franklin, and its case by some one of the 
famous group of Philadelphia cabinet-makers of the 
Chippendale period. Here again we have the char- 
acteristic details of the highboys—scrolled pediment 


with flower rosettes and carved Rococo central orna- 


ment. The quarter-section corner-columns and ogee 
bracket-feet appear as well. Later cases naturally 
followed the Hepplewhite-Sheraton style. In the 
frontispiece will be seen examples of the mantel and 


“banjo” clocks. Small portable or table clocks were . 
made very early—by about the beginning of the 


eighteenth century—but most of these attractive 
mantel clocks and also the banjo style are of the early 
nineteenth century—after the war of 1812. The style 
of mantel-clock appearing in Plate 140 is of 1820-30. 

A fire-screen with fine and unusual base will be 


PLATE 139 


TALL ‘CLOCK BY E. DUFFIELD 
By Courtesy Howard Reifsnyder, Esq. 


Photograph by Whitenack 


PLATE 140 


uojiq Aq ydessoi0yg 
*bsq ‘sapAusjiay premoy jo Asaasnop Ag 


SLNIYd GIO GNV ‘SdWVT GINTA ‘of-97gt AO AOOTO 


DECORATIVE ACCESSORIES | 183 


seen in the frontispiece, and in this picture also appears 
a decorative feature commonly neglected but of which 
other illustrations appear here—the wall-bracket. The 
pair in the Philadelphia Room (frontispiece) are of 


‘shell pattern and Chippendale period. Those with 


the chest-of-drawers and mirror of 1790-1800 in Plate 
43 are Chippendale Rococo, while two of varying 


size and pattern, but both classic, accompany the 


superb late Sheraton dressing-table in Plate 78. The 
latter came from the celebrated Burd house in Phila- 
delphia, long since demolished. The Chippendale 
brackets were bought from a previous American pos- 
sessor but are believed to be of English make. 

Our forefathers must have found illumination for 
social functions an expensive business, for we read of 
drawing-rooms ablaze with candlelight. There were 
brass or crystal chandeliers such as that in the illus- 
tration of Kenmore (Plate 131), side lights, and the 
cut glass lustre candelabra like those appearing on the » 
mantel in Plate 138. Several of the illustrations show 
lamps for the burning of fluid and a lamp of Empire 
design is seen in Plate 100. Floor standards holding 
several candles were occasionally used. Sheffield and 
brass candlesticks were of course very usual. 

Except for the modern cheap reproductive processes 
We possess no advantage over our ancestors in the 
providing of pictures for our walls, and these facilities 


were far outweighed by conditions obtaining in the 
eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The now 


practically discontinued arts of steel and copper en- 
graving, mezzotint, and the type of colour-printing 


then in use were at their highest development, and 


prints for which we would now have to pay hundreds 


and sometimes thousands of dollars were then obtain- 


able at reasonable figures. All these, including the 


% 


184 - AMERICAN DECORATION 


lovely colour-prints after paintings by Gainsborough, 
Reynolds, and Romney of England and such masters P 
of genre as Fragonard, Boucher, Huet, and Lavreince 
of France, were then accessible through importation 
by enterprising dealers here. The writer himself 
possesses a fine impression of John Browne’s engraving 
of Claude Lorrain’s Cephalus and Procris, 1779, which — 
formerly hung in an old house in Germantown. Such — 
classical subjects were naturally favourites all through 
the early years of our independence. aa 

In painting, the family portrait was of course 
prominent. It was not every house that could boast y 
a Stuart, a Trumbull, or a Copley, but there were 
other capable men, and many whose work can only, 
at the best, be considered “quaint.” . 

The popularity of the St. Memin portraits may 
be judged from the number that still remain. Some 
portraits were painted in water-colours and there were 
several excellent miniaturists of American birth. 

Americans travelling abroad frequently brought 
home with them foreign paintings, especially copies of 
the work of the old masters. 

But rampant above all upon the walls of the early 
nineteenth century was the patriotic print. A few 
of them are shown in illustrations here, but in number j 
they must have extended into hundreds of subjects. 

Modern Americans seem at last to be overcoming __ 
their timidity in the use of colour. Certainly the in- 
terpretation too often given by the usual householder 
to his so-called ‘Colonial’ home has been totally 
wrong in this respect: our forebears, and particularly 
those of cultivated tastes, knew no such fear, though 
probably stri@ Puritans and Quakers were conserva- 
tive in its use. Every opportunity occurred for the 
employment of colour—furniture-coverings, curtains, 


= ets 


Se ale es ' 
ee a ee ee ; 
Ss ae he fe pe nas a 


Dy Pate ae 


DECORATIVE ACCESSORIES 185 


rugs, bed-draperies and coverlets, often in wall-paper; 
in fire-screens and other embroideries, pictures, framed 
samplers, pottery, and the like; while the sheen of 
metal and of glass gleamed from polished silver and 
brass-ware, from copper and pewter, from candle- 
Sticks, andirons, mirrors, and frames. 

Decorative textiles afford the largest surfaces of 
colour; and for these America drew upon the resources 
of the world. This says it all: for whatever was used 
in England, France, Italy, or China was pretty sure 
to find its echo here. Probably the number of historic 
tapestries was very small, but needlework was em- 
ployed, and richness was obtained by the use of silks, 
satins, brocades, damasks, brocatelles, Genoa velvets, 
and leather. Printed fabrics were much in vogue, 
including the famous toile de Jowy. India prints for 
hangings and coverlets, with the tree-of-life and other 
most attractive designs in colours, had been in use for 
years and in this period were made in Philadelphia by 
John Hewson, a protegé of Franklin, by 1774, and a 
little later by several others. All these fabrics recur 
in profusion in inventories, letters, descriptions, and 
advertisements that still survive. Gaily flowered 
satins, yellow damask, red brocades or brocatelles, 
crimson and yellow or blue and silver silks—such were 
a few of the materials in use. Italy was famous for its 
velvets and France for its silks, and one of the elaborate 
patterns of the later years of the eighteenth century 
is shown in Plate 94 A in the contemporary silk cov- 
ering of a French DireGoire chair, by permission of 
William Helburn, Inc. But stripes, small figures, and 
self-coloured damasks and brocades were in use as 
well. Horsehair, often patterned, was a favourite 
covering, as we who in our childhood have slipped off 


186 AMERICAN DECORATION 


ancient family sofas and bumped our heads may very 
well remember. 

European manufacturers were enterprising in selz- 
ing upon the opportunity offered by our patriotism, 
and they not only furnished us with draperies bearing 
such motifs but with faience, pictures, busts, mirrors, 
and wall-papers of like character. 

In our later period, when the influence of the 
Napoleonic decoration of the Consulate and Empire 
had its effect upon our decoration, colouring often 
became less harmonious. That of the Stevens interior 
illustrated in Plate 134 is as follows: walls, grey; the 
carpet, a strong green; furniture-coverings and pillows, 
blue. The curtains of the cabinet in the farther room 
are rose, and it would have been well to have imported 
a little of that hue into the nearer portion. The ugly 
Pompeian brickish red was a favourite under the 
French Empire and we may be thankful that it was 
not used in this interior. In the water-colour drawing 
of it the lattice windows are uncurtained. A quite 


thorough combing of likely sources has not yet brought | 


to light contemporary illustrations of much value 
showing the curtain-arrangements of our earlier years, 
and so we are forced to rely upon descriptions and our 
knowledge of the originals of our styles. These were 
Ackermann’s Repository, the furniture-books, and such 
volumes as George D. Smith’s “Cabinet-Maker and 
Upholsterer’s Guide,”’ which sums up the modes he had 
been using. All these were English, all frankly fol- 
lowed the French fashion, and all were highly elaborate. 
I give two tracings from Sheraton’s “Drawing-Book,” 
the plates being dated 1792 and 93. In our American 
records we read of “festoons,”’ and here, ladies and 
gentlemen, are festoons! 


It is unlikely that these designs were fully carried 4 


Dye eae 7 parr par a 
ApS i Spe Te ere eee | 


DECORATIVE ACCESSORIES 187 


out here—they would have been adapted and simpli- 
fied. We may be quite sure that in our best houses the 
arrangement consisted of long heavy curtains with 
valance and often an added cornice. Light glass- 
curtains were used with them. The long curtains 
would have ornamental bands or be looped with cords 
and tassels. The valance might be plain, shaped, 


CURTAIN DESIGNS, DATED 1792-93, FROM SHERATON’S “ DRAWING-BOOK ” 


festooned, or draped, and was often of more ornamental 
material than the curtains. Fringes and tassels would 
be frequent as “‘trim.”’ 

Another style that we know from Mr. Halsey to 
have been widely used was the draping of the heavy 
curtains over a long gilded arrow or spear, supported 
as is a curtain pole, across the top of the window. The 
curtains hung at the sides in the usual manner. This 


ae 2 Gs 


188 AMERICAN DECORATION 


is the arrangement appearing in the Haverhill Parlour 
in the American Wing of the Metropolitan Museum; 
and indeed the curtaining of all those historic rooms 
was carefully studied and will prove an excellent guide. 
They are illustrated and described in “Houses of Our 
Ancestors” by R. T. Haines Halsey and Elizabeth 
Tower. 

The materials used were those previously men- 
tioned and in handsome designs and colourings. After 
1790 design was of classic character. 

Mr. Halsey also tells us that Venetian blinds 
appeared about 1767. 

As the lists of American silversmiths and pewterers 
extend to many printed pages, it is rather surprising 
that the makers of china and glassware were, com- 
paratively, so few. For the most part and for the finer 
grades we relied upon importation, and, as with 
fabrics, we laid the best producing sources under con- 
tribution. We all know of the quantities of china 
brought in our trading-ships from the country that 
gave the ware its name, and from England and France 
we secured not only table-ware but fine porcelain 
vases, figures and ceramic portraits. Many pieces of 
the patriotic character previously mentioned were made 
especially for this market. 


It is hoped that the authentic furniture and decora- 
tion appearing in this volume may give the reader a 
more adequate idea than he previously possessed of the 
beauty, the charm, and the dignity of the American 
home of our forebears. 


INDEX 


Accessories, Chippendale and Federal, 
182-8 
Decorative, 176-188 
Ackermann’s Repository, 145, 186 
Adam, Robert, 65, 69, 70-1, 103-4, 106, 
TIO, 115, 130, 148 
Architecture, 171-4 
Mirrors, 181 
Adams, Nehemiah, 128, Plate 84 
American affairs, Before 1700, 37-8, 
Load Sip 48-52 
he Nation, 99-102 
In Decoration, 176-9, 182 
American Innovations, 40, 87-8, 156, 157 
American Wing, Metropolitan, 188 
Antiquarian, The, 128 
Antiques (magazine), 78, 81 
“Architect’s Furniture,” 60-1 
Architectural books, 167 


Baroque, 32, 35, 43, 56, 166, 167 
Bell, Rev. Dr. Bernard Iddings, 160 
Bingham, Mrs., ror 

House, 169, 178 
Block-front, 87-9, 90 
Books in America, 86-7 
Brackett, Oliver, 65 
Brewton, Miles, house, 168-9 
Burd house, 183 
Burr, Thadeus, house, 174 
Butterfly tables, 28 


Cabinet-makers, early, 9, 30-1 
pects 45, 63-64 
trade, 63-4, 83, 153 
sa 84 
Ceszinsky, Herbert, 42, 65, 71 
Charles II, 24, 34 
Chew House, 111 
Chinaware, 188 
Chinoiserie, 79 
Chippendale style, 54, 55, 56, 57) 61, 
63-95; 99, 105, 157, 168 
mirrors, 180-1 
accessories, 182-8 
Claphamson, Samuel, 105 
Classic Revival Architecture, 73-4 
Clocks, 182 
Colour in American house, 177, 184-5 
The Connoisseur, London, 128, 150 


Courtenay, Hercules, 78 

Convenience and comfort, 46-7, 164, 
168-9, 172 

Cromwell, 24, 26, 28 

Curtains, 186-7 


Dating of furniture, 23-4, 38-9, 42-3, 
48, 52-3, 105—7, 151, 155 

David, Jacques Louis, 136, 139 

Derby, Elias Hasket, house, 93 

Derby, Richard, house, 170 

Directoire style, 133-152, 157, 158-9, 
175 

mirrors, 182 
Dufheld, E., 182 
Dutch influence, 33-37, 42, 45-7, 53, 58, 


89, 167 


Eckerson, William, 129 
Elliott, John & Sons, 180-1, Plate 135B 
Empire style, 133-6, 145, 149, 153-160 
mirrors, 181 
decoration, 186 


“Fancy” chairs, 158 

Federal furniture, 97-160 

Fire-screen, 182 

Fisher, Robert, 132 

Fleeson, Plunket, 170 

Floor-coverings, 177-9 

Flower rosettes, 92, 168, 182 

Franklin, Benjamin, 52 

French Derivations, 24, 36-7, 43, 67, 70, 
74, 80-2, 83, 110, 126, 133-160, 
167-8, 186 

French émigrés, 100-1 


Georgian Architecture, 165-171 
Mirrors, 180-1 

Gillingham, James, 74 

Girandoles, 181 

Glass, scarcity of, 165 

Glassware, 188 

Goddard, John, 88-9 

Gostelowe, Jonathan, 93-4 

Graeme Park, 166 

Greek Revival Architecture, 174-5 

Grundy, C. Reginald, 128 


Hadley chests, 27 
189 


190 


Halsey, R. T. Haines, 112, 147, 152, 
187-8 

Height of furniture, 59 

est style, 99-131 

Hewson, John, 185 

Highboys, Derivation, 59 

Hitchcock chair, 159 

Hooked Rugs, 178-9 

Hope, Thomas, 145 

Humphreys, Joshua, 181 


Inlay, 105, 107, 117, 119-21 
Interior Architecture, 163-175 
“Trish” Chippendale, 76 


Jacobean style, 23-29 

Jacobs, the, 136-7, 139, 146, 153 
Jefferson as Architect, 174 
Johnson, Edmund, 129 


Keith, Sir William, 166 
Kenmore, Virginia, 170-1, 183 
Kerwood, William, 129 
Knee-hole furniture, 88-9 


Layton, Edwin J., 95 
Lighting, 183 
Lilacs, The, 173 
Lippincott, Mrs. J. Bertram (Wharton), 
92 
dn 30, 64, 83, 100, 102, 105, 117, 
125, 143, 148, 177 


Macquoid, Percy, 42, 135-6 
McClelland, Nancy V., 170 
McIntire, Samuel, 93, 115, 173 
Mantels, 168-9, 171, 173 
Maryland, 49, 132, 171-2 
Metal Mounts, 154-5 
Mirrors, 179-182 

Modern conditions, 163 
Modern Decoration, 10 
Mt. Pleasant, 168-170 

Mt. Vernon, 170 


Neo-classic, 116, 123, 125 

New England, 39, 41, 53, 82-3, 86, 
87-9, 91, 935 94, 101, 108-9, 114, 127, 
129, 131, 138, 164-5, 167, 174, 178 

New Jersey, 128, 129 

Newport, R. I., 87-90, 149 

New York, 37, 83, 101, 112, 135, 151-2, 


158 


Oriental influence, 33-3 5 79, 156, 185 
Ornament in furniture, 8, 69 


INDEX aoe “ 


Palladian windows, 168, 173 5 Spee 
Panelled walls, 169 . sak 
Patriotic Prints, 184 
Textiles, etc., 186 vig 
Patriotism in furniture, 129, I 58 
Penn, William, 24, 37 
Pennsylvania, 8, 39, 49, 91, 108, 6 
Percier and Fontaine, 136, 1890 
Period Interiors, 163-4 14 
Philadelphia, 8, 44, 72-3, vats Vi on 
91-94, IOI, 105, 108, 129, 131, I 
148, 166, 167-170, 172, 178, 180. 
Philccscieeel Society, 52,101 
Phyfe, Duncan, 115, 133, 134, 139) 1. 
Pictures, 183-4 
Pierce (Nichols) house, 173 
Pilgrims, 49 
Plastered walls, 165, 172 
Portugal, 33-5 
Primative Furniture, 7, 23, 25-7 
Puritans, 8, 49, 88, 101, 184 


Quakers, 8, 101, 184 
Quarter-section column, 92 oe 
Queen Anne Architecture, 165, 167 
Mirrors, 180 tp 
Se Anne-Early Georgian style, 
= b: 


Randolph, Benjamin, 78 — 
Ratcliffe Manor, 166 
Regency style, 1 $39, 157 
Rittenhouse clock, 89 . 
Rococo, 56, 68, 79-80, 925 167, 170 
183 


Salem, Mass., 93, 114-15, eae 173 os 
“Sample Chairs, The,” 81-2 mas 
Savery, William, 56, 77-8 < 
Shearer, Thomas, 102, 104, 118-19, 126 
Sheathed walls, 164-5 
Sheraton style, 85, 99-13 5 ahi I 
151, 156, 157, 184, 180-9 (nee 
Smith, George D., 186 
South Carolina, 3 5, 39, 72, 105, 2a: 


168-9 2 
Stevens, John C., house, 175, ca a 
Stuart style, 23-29 Paes 
Stucco Walls, 170-1 
Styles, Derivation of, 30-1, 33, AL 
64, 88, 99-100, 102-5, III, 133- 
153- 160, 185, 186, 188 \ 
Swan, ‘Abraham, 167 


Textiles, Decorative, 170, 176, 
185-6, I 


me. INDEX ao 


John ss a, William and Mary style, 30-44, 45-6, 


4 
eet mirrors, 179-80 

per, 170, 172 Windsor Chairs, 57, 82 

, Henry, 178 © Woodhouse, Dr. Samuel W., Jr., 76, 81, 
shington, George, 52, 74, 83, IOI, 9gI 

102, 112 Woods used, 23, 43, 61-2, 73, 108, 157-8 

, Robert, 172 
n, Charles, 74 Venetian blinds, 188 
a I Md., 171-2 Virginia, 37-8, 39, 72, 105, 148, 165 


“— 


a 
* 
. 
4 
“ 
- 
‘ < 
— 
— 
é 
’ rae 
a. 
r 
ASB 
, 
MN 
2s 
md Sed 
= 


GETTY CENTER LIBRARY 
ili | 


I 


